| dbo:abstract
|
- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect the defendants from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, the defendants could be punished. The Court continued to follow this reasoning to uphold a series of convictions arising out of prosecutions during wartime, but Holmes began to dissent in the case of Abrams v. United States, insisting that the Court had departed from the standard he had crafted for them, and had begun to allow punishment for ideas. However, the Court has set another line of precedents to govern cases in which the constitutionality of a statute is challenged on its face. In 1969, Schenck was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). (en)
- シェンク対アメリカ合衆国事件（シェンクたいアメリカがっしゅうこくじけん、英:Schenck v. United States）は、1919年にアメリカ合衆国最高裁判所で判決が下された第一次世界大戦中の徴兵に対して被告はアメリカ合衆国憲法修正第1条に保証される言論の自由を持っているかという問題に関する判決である。 最終的にこの判例は「明白かつ現在の危険」規則を築いたものとなった。 (ja)
- 申克诉合众国案（Schenck v. United States； U.S. 47 (1919)）是美国联邦最高法院判决的一宗支持1917年间谍法的案例，最高法院在此案中指出被告无权援引美国宪法第一修正案包含的言论自由权利去批评美国政府在一战时期的征兵行为。最後本案建立了标准，直到1927年其影响力才逐渐减弱，而对言论自由的限制最终在最高法院1969年作出的标准中被放宽。 (zh)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 18558 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:align
| |
| dbp:arguedatea
|
- 0001-01-09 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:arguedateb
| |
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:caption
|
- Obverse (en)
- Reverse (en)
|
| dbp:case
|
- Schenck v. United States, (en)
|
| dbp:cornell
| |
| dbp:courtlistener
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-03-03 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:findlaw
| |
| dbp:footer
|
- The leaflet at issue in Schenck v. United States (en)
|
| dbp:fullname
|
- Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States (en)
|
| dbp:googlescholar
| |
| dbp:holding
|
- Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it was intended to result in a crime and created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war. (en)
|
| dbp:image
|
- Schenck v. United States Leaflet .jpg (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
| |
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
|
- U.S. Const. amend. I; (en)
|
| dbp:litigants
|
- Schenck v. United States (en)
|
| dbp:loc
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:overruled
|
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (en)
|
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
|
- Defendants convicted, E.D. Pa.; motion for new trial denied, 253 F. 212 (en)
|
| dbp:subsequent
| |
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:width
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- シェンク対アメリカ合衆国事件（シェンクたいアメリカがっしゅうこくじけん、英:Schenck v. United States）は、1919年にアメリカ合衆国最高裁判所で判決が下された第一次世界大戦中の徴兵に対して被告はアメリカ合衆国憲法修正第1条に保証される言論の自由を持っているかという問題に関する判決である。 最終的にこの判例は「明白かつ現在の危険」規則を築いたものとなった。 (ja)
- 申克诉合众国案（Schenck v. United States； U.S. 47 (1919)）是美国联邦最高法院判决的一宗支持1917年间谍法的案例，最高法院在此案中指出被告无权援引美国宪法第一修正案包含的言论自由权利去批评美国政府在一战时期的征兵行为。最後本案建立了标准，直到1927年其影响力才逐渐减弱，而对言论自由的限制最终在最高法院1969年作出的标准中被放宽。 (zh)
- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect the defendants from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such ci (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- シェンク対アメリカ合衆国事件 (ja)
- Schenck v. United States (en)
- 申克诉合众国案 (zh)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
.jpg?width=300)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}