Respuesta :
Answer/Explanation:
During the 1900s the U.S government passed two laws which were viewed as oppressive of the rights and freedom of speech of American citizens during war. These legislations were the Sedition Act of 1918 and the Espionage Act which made it an offense for anyone to write, print, utter or publish or aid the writing, printing, uttering or publication of anything that is scandalous, abusive, defamatory, or disloyal of the government of the United States or its military and is capable of bringing the government or its military into contempt or disregard, or instigate resistance against the government or the military during a time when the country is at war.
Unfortunately, in the wake of World War I, Charles Scheck who was a socialist and a U.S politician opposed America's involvement in the first World War. During the subsistence of the war, he wrote, published and distributed articles and leaflets expressing his view on the participation of America in the war. He was subsequently charged to Court for contravening the provisions of the Espionage and Sedition Act and was found guilty. The U.S Supreme Court held that the language used by Charles in his publications was seditious of the government and capable of instigating resistance against the government and her military during the war. The court held that no court could guarantee Charles' language as used in his publications during the war. The Court further held that Charles through his publications caused panic amongst the citizens, and that the circumstances at which those publications were in circulation being a time when the U.S was involved in a war warranted the conviction of Charles.
The Supreme Court suggested the mentioned statement because of the legal provisions under which he was charged and the context of his action.
The Case of Charles Schenck
During 1900s the Acts like Sedition Act, and Espionage Act were passed, which was oppressive in its characterisitc and against the values of US Constitution.
Charles Scheck was charged with these acts, and SC said that "no Court could regard Charles Schenck's language as protected by any Constitutional right". In terms of legal studies, the statement of SC was not out of context, because of following reasons:
- It only prevailed the laws which was passed in 1910s.
- The Language of Charles Scheck was against the objectives of US government.
- And it has power to shift public support from participating in war to against the participation in war.
Learn more about Charles Schenck here:
https://brainly.com/question/19393020
