Talk:Schenck v. United States

message: I added citations/references to the quotes from the text of the Justice Holmes' opinion. --grandpa lemon 20:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Citations 

message: this is not the right info. it may have moved the clear and present danger standard to "imminent" danger, but it does not explicitly overrule the Schenck case.  The article suggests that Brandenburg overturned both Whitney and Schenck, but it would be more technically accurate to say that it "narrowed" them.  Schenck, surprisingly remains good law as far as I can tell.
www.chancelucky.blogspot.com
:Brandenburg essentially overrules Schenck sub silentio. I don't think any judge could square the Court's reasoning in Brandenburg with the result reached in Schenck. But yes, you're correct in that Brandenburg only officially overrules Whitney v. California, which isn't even the most speech-restrictive precedent prior to 1969. That dubious distinction probably goes to Dennis v. United States, which the per curiam opinion actually cites to as if it's good law. But in reality, it isn't either. In trying to understand what the Supreme Court does, it is frequently necessary to look not just to what the Court says it's doing, but at what the results it reaches seem to indicate about what it's doing. SS451 17:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The clear and present danger test, paraphrased, is 'if the speech creates the possibility that people might oppose a law or organize to get it changed, then that speech is not protected'. Also note that false speech, either shouted or whispered, in either a crowded theater or an empty one, is not protected by the First Amendment. ( Martin |  talk • contribs  11:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Brandenburg actually overrule Schenck 

message: I have fixed the block quote (the one that contains "clear and present danger"), as everything before that actual phrase is either a rough paraphrase of the actual sentence or drawn (and paraphrased) from other parts of the opinion. I also got rid of the bolding. It's unnecessary and rather insults the intelligence of our readers to suggest that they can't identify the key phrase (which is quoted immediately above) in a fairly short sentence. SS451 17:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquote 

message: No reason is listed in the talk page for the prosed change. Is ther ea link to a relevant discussion? At any rate, why do (who) other editor/s feel this case is not important enough to have its own page?Ebanony (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you misunderstood; the proposal is to merge Charles Schenck into this article, not to merge this case article somewhere else.  postdlf (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparantly I did. No problem. Ok, that article you cited has almost no use at all. Looks like it should have been merged with this one a while ago.Ebanony (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny, I see now that I was the one who tagged it for merging over two years ago...  postdlf (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of article on main page suggested 

message: I may have been overlooking something, but it seemed like Schenck being "a Yiddish-speaking Jew" wasn't relevant to the case or decision.  AFAIK, personal traits usually aren't mentioned in Wikipedia articles unless there's a solid connection with the article topic, so if it doesn't meet that informal hurdle, it probably doesn't belong there any more than his shoe size. (If it does and I overlooked something, ignore this post! :) —Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 06:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsurprisingly, it's not mentioned in the Court's opinion. It's possible there is commentary somewhere that attributes his conviction in part to his ethnicity, but without any source presently cited that could provide that context (or even just verify the fact of it), it's not accomplishing anything right now to mention it in the article. postdlf (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Schenck's religion/ethnicity relevant...? 

message: :
The "events", I take it, being Holmes's dissent in a related case, as discussed below.  I'd omit the "because" clause here: it doesn't add anything. —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  needlessly cryptic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Schenck v. United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050717083552/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org:80/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Schenck_v_US to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Schenck_v_US
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added images of the leaflet from the official record. I think it reveals the absurdity of this oft-cited disposition. No fair minded person could say this is not protected speech under the First Amendment.—bryanlafonte (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: advising & helping some one to commit a crime is not "free" speech in 2016. It's very expensive speech. Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Images of Leaflet 

message: In light of all the kvetching by leftist editors about "original research" and conclusions not being valid, what a surprise that none of you care that the last pararaph is just made up, with zero citations. It is not still good law, and it certainly isn't indisputably still good law;
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
Rivalin (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Daask (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing paragraph 

message: Deleted a line claiming the case is "one of the worst rulings" in U.S. history is from a random website called Money Inc doing a top 10 list in an opinion piece. 75.88.103.253 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How dare you! (Kidding!) I was annoyed to find out the info deleted, but after thinking about it, I understand your motivations and share the concern about subjectivity. But on the other hand, if more references, independent and reliable, can be found where it is stated also that it is one of the worst decisions of the SCOTUS, maybe it should be reinstated. Even though it may be a subjective ranking, it may reflect the opinion of legal experts throughout the country, which is useful information that has its merits of inclusion in the article. --Thinker78 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  opinion deleted 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ctysick (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 Hon