Though the outcomes of Schenck and New York Times differed, what did these decisions have in common?

Though the outcomes of Schenck and New York Times differed, what did these decisions have in common?

A-The government has a heavy burden to prove harm.

B-The government can limit speech that causes harm.

C-The government has unlimited power to limit speech.

D-The government must follow the First Amendment.

Answer: B-The government can limit speech that causes harm.

Both the Schenck v. United States (1919) and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) cases, despite their different outcomes, shared a common principle: whereas the government can suppress potentially damaging speech, although not in the same way and under different circumstances the free speech principles.

In the case Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Charles Schenck for distributing anti-conscription fliers during World War I, Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr. for the first time presented what is referred to as the clear and present danger test, on the view that the constitution did not forbid the government from controlling speech that posed a real danger at that particular time. For this reason, the Court considered Schenck’s actions as capable of obstructing the aforesaid theme in the war a ground that enabled the government to intervene.

On the other hand, in New York Times Co. v United States which is also referred to as the Pentagon papers, the Court held on the provision of prior restraint to publish what was labelled as classified information on the Vietnam War. However, the decision was also made that there were circumstances under which the government may restrict speech, that being where the safety of the nation was threatened. Mondial decided that the government had to prove that publication would result in a loss of value as significant as “grave and irreparable” for the nation.

Both cases acknowledged the government’s capacity to refrain from speech that poses danger to the public but crucially diversified on the degree of harm required to warrant restrictions on such speech. This shared factor shows the constant struggle between the freedom of speech and the government’s desire to protect society, which continues to define the modern First Amendment law.