This HTML5 document contains 155 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n15http://www.reachandteach.com/content/staticpages/
n24https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/99296/schenck-v-united-states/
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
n25https://scholar.google.com/
n19https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/249/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n8http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
n6https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
n28http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep249/usrep249047/
n12https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbpedia-hehttp://he.dbpedia.org/resource/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
n33http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/5/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n10http://dbpedia.org/resource/Landmark_Cases:
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n35http://
n13http://supreme.justia.com/us/249/47/
n17http://plunkettlakepress.com/
n16http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
n27https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
dbpedia-zhhttp://zh.dbpedia.org/resource/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
dbpedia-jahttp://ja.dbpedia.org/resource/
n29https://web.archive.org/web/20050717083552/http:/www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Schenck_v._United_States
rdf:type
yago:Event100029378 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Case107308889 wikidata:Q2334719 yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases owl:Thing yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:Abstraction100002137 dbo:Case yago:Happening107283608 dbo:LegalCase dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:UnitOfWork
rdfs:label
シェンク対アメリカ合衆国事件 Schenck v. United States 申克诉合众国案
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。 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。 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
foaf:name
Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States
foaf:depiction
n16:Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_1902.jpg n16:Schenck_v._United_States_Leaflet_(Obverse).jpg n16:Schenck_v._United_States_Leaflet_(Reverse).jpg
dcterms:subject
dbc:United_States_home_front_during_World_War_I dbc:20th-century_American_trials dbc:Conscription_in_the_United_States dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_White_Court dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr. dbc:1919_in_United_States_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
168894
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1121122393
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Socialist_Party dbr:Hess_v._Indiana n8:Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_1902.jpg dbc:1919_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_home_front_during_World_War_I dbr:Louis_D._Brandeis n10:_Historic_Supreme_Court_Decisions dbr:Frohwerk_v._United_States dbr:Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr. dbc:20th-century_American_trials dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Pennsylvania dbr:Edward_Douglass_White dbr:Conscription_in_the_United_States dbr:Sacher_v._United_States dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States dbr:Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire dbr:Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater dbr:Lawyers'_Edition dbr:Korematsu_v._United_States dbr:First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Brandenburg_v._Ohio dbr:Terminiello_v._Chicago dbr:Kunz_v._New_York dbr:C-SPAN dbr:World_War_I dbc:Conscription_in_the_United_States dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_249 dbr:LexisNexis dbr:Per_curiam_decision dbr:Masses_Publishing_Co._v._Patten dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Imminent_lawless_action dbr:Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Involuntary_servitude dbr:Dennis_v._United_States dbr:Federal_Reporter dbr:U.S._Supreme_Court dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_White_Court dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Judicial_review_in_the_United_States dbr:Riot dbr:Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_We_Hate dbr:United_States_Supreme_Court dbr:Abrams_v._United_States dbc:Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr. dbr:Whitney_v._California dbr:Debs_v._United_States dbr:Clear_and_present_danger dbr:Threatening_the_president_of_the_United_States dbr:Espionage_Act_of_1917 dbr:Feiner_v._New_York dbr:Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Jr. dbr:Harvard_Law_School dbr:Woodrow_Wilson
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n6: n13:case.html n15:index.php%3Fpage=nytschenck n17:hj.html n24: n27:47 n29:case.aspx%3Fcase=Schenck_v_US n28:usrep249047.pdf n25:scholar_case%3Fcase=8474153321909160293 n19:47.html n33:Schenck-v-United-States n35:www.honorablejustice.blogspot.com
owl:sameAs
n12:4oQao dbpedia-he:שנק_נגד_ארצות_הברית freebase:m.016m83 wikidata:Q6124208 yago-res:Schenck_v._United_States dbpedia-zh:申克诉合众国案 dbpedia-ja:シェンク対アメリカ合衆国事件
dbp:subsequent
None
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Wikisource-inline dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Cite_book dbt:Cite_magazine dbt:Cite_journal dbt:US1stAmendment dbt:Reflist dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Ussc dbt:Multiple_image dbt:Usc
dbo:thumbnail
n16:Schenck_v._United_States_Leaflet_(Obverse).jpg?width=300
dbp:joinmajority
unanimous
dbp:lawsapplied
U.S. Const. amend. I;
dbp:parallelcitations
63
dbp:prior
Defendants convicted, E.D. Pa.; motion for new trial denied, 253 F. 212
dbp:uspage
47
dbp:usvol
249
dbp:align
left
dbp:argueyear
1919
dbp:caption
Reverse Obverse
dbp:case
Schenck v. United States,
dbp:courtlistener
n24:
dbp:decidedate
0001-03-03
dbp:decideyear
1919
dbp:findlaw
n19:47.html
dbp:footer
The leaflet at issue in Schenck v. United States
dbp:fullname
Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States
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.
dbp:image
Schenck v. United States Leaflet .jpg
dbp:justia
n13:case.html
dbp:litigants
Schenck v. United States
dbp:majority
Holmes
dbp:width
100
dbp:loc
n28:usrep249047.pdf
dbo:abstract
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。 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). 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。
dbp:arguedatea
0001-01-09
dbp:arguedateb
10
dbp:cornell
n27:47
dbp:googlescholar
n25:scholar_case%3Fcase=8474153321909160293
dbp:overruled
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Schenck_v._United_States?oldid=1121122393&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
18558
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Schenck_v._United_States