Read the following essay and answer the question, “Should a U.S. citizen be allowed to protest a war or draft in time of war?”

Feel free to submit your essay below for review or contribute your thoughts on other essays posted. Both activities will help you prepare for the exam and the more you contribute, the more you will get out of this section.

ESSAY PROMPT

Free Speech

In 1917, after voting overwhelmingly for a draft due to lack of volunteers for the war “to end all wars”, Congress passed, and President Woodrow Wilson signed into law, the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act had a clause that provided penalties up to twenty years in prison for “Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny… or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the U.S. .. .” An additional clause indicated “nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict . . . any discussion, comment, or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government. .. .”

Two months after the law passed, a Socialist named Charles Schenck was arrested in Philadelphia for printing and distributing fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war. Schenck was indicted, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months in jail for violating the Espionage Act. Schenck appealed, arguing that the Act, by prosecuting speech and writing, violated the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.. . .”

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous and was written by its most famous liberal, Oliver Wendell Holmes. He summarized the contents of the leaflet and said it was undoubtedly intended to “obstruct” the carrying out of the draft law. Was Schenck protected by the First Amendment? Holmes said:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. … The question in every case is whether 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.

Holmes’s analogy was clever and attractive. Few people would think free speech should be conferred on someone shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. However, many criticize the analogy in this case and believe the Espionage Act is an infringement by government on the 1st amendment right to free speech. It has been blamed for prosecuting even the most trivial of acts. In this case Schenk was not inciting violence. He believed the draft violated the 13th amendment. Does that constitute a clear and present danger? Was not Schenck’s act more like someone shouting, not falsely, but truly, to people about to buy tickets and enter a theater, that there was a fire raging inside.

The Espionage Act, thus approved by the Supreme Court, has remained on the books all these years since World War I, and although it is supposed to apply only in wartime, it has been constantly in force since 1950.

Do you think the Supreme Court was correct or incorrect in this decision?

“Do you think the Supreme Court was correct or incorrect? Should a U.S. citizen be allowed to protest a war or draft in time of war?”

Your essay should be well-organized and include support from the story for your main ideas.

If commenting on the essays please remember the rules and stick with positive suggestions that can help the author. Focus on the essay structure and quality. The following guidelines are by no means compete, but can serve as a guide for useful suggestions.

  • Quality and impact of thesis statement and opening paragraph. This may be the most important paragraph. Does it provide a roadmap for the essay?
  • Supporting paragraphs. Do these follow the outline of the 1st paragraph? Do they use explicit examples and not deviate unnecessarily from topic?
  • Prose. Are the sentences direct and effective with proper grammar and correct spelling?
  • Conclusion. Perhaps the least important paragraph. Does it wrap it all up?

This Post Has 48 Comments

  1. Essay

    A true patriot cheers the government on when they do well and protests when the government does not act in the best interests of the people. The Supreme Court failed to uphold Schenck’s right to express his contrarian opinion in this case. The attacks on the 1st amendment right to free speech have been numerous and consistent since the original Bill of Rights was passed and the Supreme Court should have stood more firmly against the potential harmful whims of the other branches of government. Schenck did not present a clear and present danger and the court ignored the text of the law that makes clear the Espionage Act should not be used to limit criticism of the government. What good is freedom of speech if citizens cannot express their ideas without recourse at the time those ideas are most relevant?

    It is the duty of the Supreme Court to act as a check and balance to the executive and legislative branches of government and failure to do so puts our entire democracy at risk. In this case, it seems President Wilson signed the Espionage Act into law exactly at the point of time he needed a big stick to force civilians into the military. The cause was clearly not popular and the government had a practical problem to resolve: how do they attract recruits in to the army? The solution was a draft, but one citizen at least, Charles Schenck believed the draft law violated the 13th amendment to the constitution. Furthermore, Scheck was a socialist and probably unpopular. In either case, the natural ally of unpopular ideas in our government is the Supreme Court and if they don’t balance the popular will then the Bill of Rights has no teeth.

    I fail to see how passing out fliers can be construed as a clear and present danger. Scheck was not physically attempting to thwart the government. He did not burn a draft office or commit any terrorist activities. He had a strong opinion and apparently a well thought out argument based on the 13th amendment. Is that not exactly the type of thought provoking free speech that the 1st amendment is designed to protect? Furthermore, I do not buy into Oliver Wendell Holmes analogy or even his right to limit the scope of the 1st amendment based on his own criteria. The idea that anyone was going to “burn” because of one man passing out fliers is a weak argument at best. And since when does Congress have a right or even the ability to judge which substantive evils require marginalizing free speech?

    The text of the Espionage Act specifically noted that the law should not be used to restrict comments or criticism against the government and Schenck’s only crime was to criticize government policy. Schenck didn’t even violate the letter of the law! He saw what he perceived to be a wrong being imposed on the citizens of the country and spoke up about what he believed. He told the truth like any patriot should when the government acts contrary to the will of the people and the rule of law.

    In summary, the Supreme Court was incorrect and guilty of harassing Charles Schenck. The brief 6 month punishment strikes me as a tacit acknowledgment that Scheck was justified in his protest. The court failed to act as the check that the three branches of government theoretically provide. The concept of clear and present danger was twisted and no discourse was given to the possibility that the government’s draft represented a clear and present danger to citizens. The text of the legislation itself should have absolved Charles Schenck from guilt, but instead the Supreme Court has set a precedent that the Bill of Rights is exposed to attack and that could not be more obvious than in the present day with NSA spying and the “un”Patriot Act.

  2. That is a particularly good essay. Well structured ideas with supporting evidence. I read the court was wrong – your thesis. And then 3 reasons in the opening paragraph. 1. The court failed to act as a check on the other 2 branches of govt. 2. it was not a clear and present danger 3. the Espionage Act carves out the right to protest the government. The body paragraphs follow up each point in detail. Then the conclusion reiterates the same ideas. Keep up the good work.

  3. Essay

    As a citizen of the United States, one has the right to say anything about anything as long as it is not “inciting violence” and creating a “clear and present danger.” In the case of Charles Schenck, I believe the congress was incorrect. Charles Schenck handed out fifteen thousand leaflets that criticized the draft law and war. The congress then responded by sentencing him to six months in jail. This was an incorrect decision due to the fact that he was not creating a clear and present danger. In addition to this, Mr. Schenck was not inciting violence. Lastly, depending on your opinion, his pamphlets, as opposed to shouting falsely about a fire in a theatre, it could be shouting truly, depending on one’s opinion. Due to these reasons, it is clear that the congress was incorrect in the case of Charles Schenck.
    Charles was not creating a “clear and present danger,” as Oliver Wendell Holmes states. While the fire in the theatre analogy, people would be hurt in the next five minutes, what Mr. Schenck did not cause fatalities, if any, in the next couple minutes. In addition, the supposed danger he created was not clear. It was possible that he would cause people to refuse to fight, and result in more casualties and a prolonging of the war, but this danger is unclear. He did not assault draft administrators or burn down documents. He simply protested the law in a peaceful way. The possibility of casualties in shouting fire in a theatre far outweighs that of passing out papers “denouncing the draft law”.
    Mr. Schenck was not inciting violence. Inciting violence means to directly cause violence. While he may have been encouraging people to refuse to fight, which may have caused more casualties in war, this was indirect. It was the countries enemies who would cause the casualties directly. As stated in the previous paragraph, Mr. Schenck protested in a peaceful way. Had he burned down documents or assaulted people, he would have been jailed justifiably for inciting violence, or causing it directly. However, protesting a law in a peaceful way should be protected by the First Amendment.
    Lastly, the metaphorical fire he was shouting of was real, as opposed to Mr. Holmes’s attractive but not parallel analogy. There was a real danger in war, instead of a fake fire. In addition, Mr. Schenck had a good motive, instead of causing mischief and disorder for no reason. He may have hurt more people than he saved, but that is a matter of opinion, not fact, an opinion that the congress has no right to decide. A fine, or community service hours could be arguable, but jail time for someone trying to do their best to be a patriot is not a good decision.
    Without a doubt, the congress made a mistake in putting Charles Schenck in jail. He did not incite violence or create a clear and present danger from his actions. In addition, what he did is nothing like shouting fire in a theatre falsely. There actually was a fire in his case. The Supreme Court had no right whatsoever to find Charles guilty.

  4. Good attempt at a tricky and controversial topic that is front and center in current news with the current administration! I like the structure of your essay. Your thesis is that Congress was incorrect and a citizen has the right to say anything short of inciting violence and a clear and present danger. You outline the three supporting ideas clearly in the introductory paragraph and base each body paragraph on those ideas: Schenck did not cause a clear and present danger, he did not incite violence, and the analogy to a fire in a theater is not applicable. Your summary is short, but it wraps your point succinctly and this is not a paragraph that requires too much time and creativity on a relative basis.

    I would make the following suggestions. In your first paragraph you state three times that Congress was incorrect. I think you said it with authority the first time so there is no need to say it again after reciting the facts of what happened to Schenck. The sentence “Lastly, depending on your…could be shouting truly…” might be rephrased to say “…could be characterized as shouting truly…” I think it doesn’t quite make sense as written although I get the point: Schenck was speaking true, not falsely. A poorly crafted or unclear sentence in the most important paragraph of all can really hurt an essay. It may get the reader on edge looking for more errors throughout the essay. A similar crafting of your sentence in the 2nd paragraph, “While the fire in the theater….” might give the person grading the essay that next mistake which is a shame because your supporting ideas in that paragraph are strong. You identify two key points in rebuttal to “a clear and present danger”. The danger is indirect and therefore not clear and possible only at a future time and therefore not present.
    This may be a picky point, but in the second body paragraph you define violence with the word violence again. Use a synonym or some such. Also, “incite” by definition means stirring others to action so it actually doesn’t mean directly causing the violence. Be careful about making strong factual statements. If the reader can refute one strong statement of supposed fact, then in their mind they call into question the entire essay and that may hurt when it comes time to grade the essay. Again, that would be a shame because the supporting points in that paragraph are solid! The last body paragraph also raises some good points and begins by drawing the difference between a real danger and a theoretical one. You even introduce a new point which I usually discourage, but when done well in the context of a solid structure to an essay I personally think it can be effective. You raise the point that Congress encoded into a law the ability to draw an opinion of what constitutes danger and that is something they should not be doing. I would like to see a little extra elaboration like a comment that the constitution exists to protect the people from the opinions of Congress and the majority and not the other way around.

    Last couple suggestions. I think some commas aren’t needed in the last paragraph like right before “instead”. Also, this isn’t so much a writing point as it is a debating strategy suggestion. Don’t soften your argument by admitting that a watered down punishment would be acceptable. Community service? If you believe Schenck is right then argue for no punishment. A reader might say to himself, “Okay. This author doesn’t fully believe his own argument so why should I?”

  5. Essay

    The Espionage Act said that anyone who obstructs recruitment should be arrested and put in jail. A man named Charles Schenck was passing out pamphlets and he got arrested for six months. He called for his rights in the first amendment and the case went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruling was that the first amendment did not protect Charles. The Supreme Court should not have ruled that way since Charles did not even break the Act and the first amendment protected him.

    The Espionage Act created by President Woodrow Wilson stated that anyone who obstructs recruitment should be arrested. Charles Schenck passed out pamphlets and did not obstruct recruitment. He merely peacefully protested against it which was not against the law. Many people protest against various topics. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. protested for African American civil rights. The Espionage Act should not have let Charles be arrested since he was only protesting.

    The first amendment states that congress can not make a law with abridged the freedom of press or speech. President Woodrow Wilson did exactly that when he made the Act. Charles Schenck was just passing out pamphlets which is press and the first amendment should protect him. The founding fathers made the freedom of press and speech the first amendment since they thought it was important. The first amendment protected him, but the Supreme Court did not acknowledge that fact.

    The Supreme Court acted wrongly and should have freed Charles Schenck instead of jailing him for five years. Charles did not break the Espionage Act since he did not obstruct recruitment. He only protested it and was wrongly apprehended. The first amendment had the power to free Charles since it is the freedom of press and printing pamphlets is using the press. The Supreme Court did not acknowledge that fact and jailed him. The Supreme Court misjudged badly during the trial.

  6. I think the outline of this essay shares much with the last essay. The 1st paragraph is almost entirely a recap of the facts. The purpose of an essay is not to recap the story or the facts. The person grading your essay will know that already. They will want to see you present a strong, opinionated thesis statement based on the story or essay prompt that answers the question and then they will want to see you back up your thesis with about three reasons that are well supported with examples. You will be expected to incorporate these concepts and present them in a fairly advanced writing style for your age. I suggest concentrating on these things for the next time and read many other examples. I think that could really help you.

    Again, in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs you present a couple of those reasons. Skip the recap and throw those reasons into the intro paragraph. Then provide up to 3 body paragraphs with details to support your points. Be specific and clear about your supporting details in the body paragraphs. For example, in your 2nd paragraph, was Schenck protesting peacefully? Why? He was passing out pamphlets arguably inciting people to avoid the draft law. That seems like obstruction to me. In the third paragraph, the 1st Amendment did not protect him as you say. He got arrested and thrown in jail! Schenck was not a reporter and his pamphlets were not news so how does it qualify as “press” like you say? I am playing a little bit of devil’s advocate, but readers will have questions and you cannot just make claims without providing evidence to support your case and hopefully put the reader’s questions to bed.

  7. This is my redo

    The Supreme court should rule justly since there are the highest court and other courts branch of from it. They did not uphold Charles Schenck’s rights when they made an unanimous vote against him and jailed him for six months. For passing out leaflets protesting drafting Charles was not a danger to the government or anyone else. The Supreme Court was wrong in arresting Charles Schenck and should balance the other branches’ powers, the Espionage Act should not have affected anyone one who criticized drafting, and the Court violated the first amendment.

    Each branch limits the power of the other branches. To not do that is to take away the fundamentals of democracy. Charles was a socialist and therefore was unpopular and this probably swayed the Supreme Court. President Wilson wanted Charles to be jailed since he made the draft and thought it was the right decision. The Court can not be bias to the president or congress, but have to make their own decisions. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret laws correctly and make fair decisions, but if they do not who else will.

    The Espionage Act in a clause said “nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict . . . any discussion, comment, or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government. .. .” Charles Schenk criticized drafting, but he was arrested under the Espionage Act. He also did not willfully obstruct drafting since passing out leaflets is not trying to block drafting that minute, but just expressing opinions. He would not have been able to convince enough people to cause a revolt against the draft with fifteen thousand leaflets only. He was not disloyal either and thought that the draft obstructed the 13th amendment. The Espionage Act should not have had the power to arrest Charles in the first place.

    There have been many instances where the first amendment has been violated and the Supreme Court should not allow them to happen. The first amendment says no laws can restrict the freedom of speech and press, but that is what exactly happened when Charles was arrested by the Espionage Act. He called upon his right to the first amendment, but the Supreme Court denied it. They should be protectors of the first amendment and not let violations be carried out. Charles Schenck was under the protection of the first amendment and the Supreme Court had no right to jail him for six months.

    The Supreme Court should have made its own decisions not what the rest of the government wanted. Charles Schenck was not entitled to be arrested by the Espionage Act. The Supreme Court should have let Charles go since he was protected by the first amendment. Oliver Wendell Holmes made an analogy that said that freedom of speech would not go to someone who disrupted a movie, but what Charles did was very different and did not harm anyone. All in all, I think the Supreme Court made a huge blunder when they arrested Charles Schenk.

  9. Hello, this is my introduction for free speech.(I am Ash)

    “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”The First Amendment of the Constitution protects every citizen’s freedom of speech and gives them the right to openly criticize the government and its decisions. Despite this, Charles Schneck was imprisoned for six months for passing out leaflets that scrutinized the Espionage Act. In turn, however, during the Supreme Court ruling, it seems that Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes violated the First Amendment when he made his clever analogy to the fire. While Holmes’s analogy was quick and smart, it fails to explain how Charles Schneck’s opinion created a “clear and present danger.” Chief Justice Holmes’s acts tell me that through an infringement of the First Amendment, a weak argument, and false interpretation of the Espionage Act, the Supreme Court was wrong in its decision.

    1. The first three sentences set the scene. While generally okay, this will be a time compressed test so you may only be able to afford one or two sentences of scene setting. You also may want to ask yourself to what extent am I just providing a synopsis of the story or event (probably not as necessary for the reader grading your essay as they already know the story) and to what extent am I showing I understand the main conundrum (national security in time of war vs.personal freedoms)? I might suggest to keep it simple. “In turn, however, during the Supreme Court ruling, it seems…” is very complicated language for a phrase that I may argue could be eliminated entirely. Just start the sentence “Charles Schenk was….” Also, I don’t think Holmes violated the 1st amendemnt. I think he just ruled on a potential violation of the 1st amendment.

      Your 1st supporting idea jumps out clearly. Justice Holmes failed to explain how Schenck’s flyers constituted a clear and present danger. After that I am less clear what the other two distinct points are in support of your thesis. The next sentence is again too wordy “Holmes’s acts tell me that through”. Maybe just say, “Holmes infringed”? Are the next two points a weak argument and false interpretation? Those strike me as supporting reasons why Holmes failed to explain a clear and present danger. Overall good first attempt, but I would suggest you simplify the prose and make sure to state three clear, separate points in support of your thesis that can then be argued in three body paragraphs.

  10. Is a patriot someone who criticizes the government when it does not have the best of interest for its citizens or is it someone who supports the best of interest for their own country? Its both. The government is an extension of the will of the people and the governments fundamental principle is to act out for the best of interests of its people. I believe that congress was looking out for what was best for the country rather than what was best for its people. I believe that the Espionage act was a neccessary law. The way the Supreme Court ruled the case of Charles Schenck was incorrect however.

    The duty of congress it to act as an law making body with the interest of our nation as a whole in mind. President Wilson signed the Espionage act as a way to force citizens to enter WWI. The U.S entering was clearly not a popular idea and congress had to solve how to attract citizens to sign up for the military. During this time the act may have seemed to be undemocratic and seemed to viloate our freedoms as a citizen but it eventually helped the U.S reap the reward near the end of the war. WWI was a huge factor in promoting the U.S as a world superpower. The entry of the U.S into WWI was the right choice. The Espionage act was a practical solution to getting more citizens to join the war effort.

    Charles Schenck, a socialist, was arrested in Philadelphia for printing and distributing fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war. Schenck was indicted, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months in jail for violating the Espionage Act. Every citizen has the right to express their own thoughts and opinions. The freedom of speech and press is one of our basic rights stated in the First Amendment of our constitution. Charles Schenck was unfairly treated tried by the Supreme Court by not supporting the draft law. Passing out fliers was in no way a serious protest to obstruct the draft laws and it was in no way suggesting an anti-government messages. I believe that while Oliver Wendall Holmes was right when it came to his statement that, ” The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. … The question in every case is whether 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,” what Charles Schenck did was not evil and in no way did he incite any violence. He was a true patriot as he was someone who had the nation’s citizens at heart.

    In conclusion I believe that the Supreme Court ruling in this case was incorrect and it suggested that we as the people had no power to proclaim what we thought was wrong. I believe that Charles Schenck was unfairly convicted. He broke no rules. All he did was inform citizens about of the Espionage act may not be what is best for this country. The Supreme Court was wrong when they convicted Schneck for his ‘unpatriotic act’. The Supreme court suggests that the Bill Of Rights is not always upheld and proof of the that is the NSA spying. I believe that while the Espionage act was a necessary act during WWI that is not the case anymore. The Supreme Court is guilty for harassing Schenck due to his belief that the Espionage act was not fair to the citizens of the U.S.

    1. I like the structure of this essay and your main ideas. While you believe the ruling against Schenck was unjust, you do point out a new, counterbalancing idea not raised in previous essays; the government has a responsibility to occasionally look out for the interests of the whole even at the expense of a few. The opening question introduces this split and you even answer the question to say that both can be patriotic acts. The structure of the essay follows with 1 body paragraph explaining the pluses of the government action and the next body para discusses individual freedoms particularly in the case of Schenck. It is a tricky thesis to pull off and a good attempt.

      Aside from small spelling or diction issues in the 1st body paragraph (e.g. last sentence might be “solution to get” no need for ing”), the paragraph argues a strong point; although unpopular, entry into the war was necessary. The unstated background facts are that Russia was withdrawing from the war leaving Germany able to focus on one front rather than two and open to move on Paris. It is likely France and Great Britain would have been defeated without U.S. intervention and perhaps quickly! You clearly know enough history on this matter to state we arguably did the right thing by protecting our allies and further launched our country to superpower status. In this light you finish by stating the Espionage was a practical necessity (perhaps by suggestion not ideal, but definitely needed at the time). Well done.

      Again a couple diction points in the 2nd body para (e.g. “unfairly treated tried…by not supporting” maybe should be “treated and tried…for not supporting”, don’t use “…” except carefully and for purposed effect, and the second to last sentence may be a run on sentence), but the ideas are powerful. It may be too extreme to say Schenck’s protest was “in no way” serious (whatever “serious” exactly means in this circumstance) or “in no way” suggested an anti-government message. I the reader might argue those points. Just be careful not to be so extreme as to give the reader an obvious hook to disprove your argument. The specific point that Holmes’ clear and present danger argument was correct, but not applied properly to this case is well argued. Schenck’s protest did not incite violence. That is a fact. Arguably, it did not bring about a substantive evil as you say although I suspect Wilson and Congress may have thought anything that let Germany continue unchecked constituted a substantive evil.

      Your conclusion is equally thought provoking. You reiterate the nuance in your thesis that the Espionage Act was a necessity in WWI, but it is not needed today. You argue Schenck did not break the letter of the rule. Also, you suggest the Supreme Court doesn’t always uphold the Bill of Rights. That is a powerful concluding statement which is often overlooked and it drives to the heart of this matter. It gets me the reader thinking further about the essay which is a sign of a powerful argument. Isn’t the Supreme Court supposed to act as an independent check and balance against the executive and legislative branch in our government and uphold our rights? Have they failed to do this in the case of the Espionage Act?

  11. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.. . .” the First Amendment declares. Everyone should have freedom of speech and be able to express their feelings to others without being persecuted. Charles Schenck was jailed for allowing fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war. This was wrong on the Supreme Court’s behalf because they contradicted the First Amendment, there was no clear presence of a danger, and they failed to contact the other two branches for more opinions. U.S. citizens should be allowed to protest a war or draft because it is part of their freedom of speech as a citizen of the U.S.A.
    To start, the Espionage Act that the Supreme Court abided with at the time conflicted with the First Amendment. The First Amendment clearly states that congress has no right to create a law that obstructs the freedom of speech or of the press. However, congress decides to make an Espionage act, which caused Schenck’s sentence to prison despite the fact that he was only trying to express his thoughts to the public. Schenk was unfortunately cause lots of misery because of the hypocrisy of the Supreme Court and therefore should not have been jailed.
    Secondly, there was no clear danger in his leaflets. It was proven that Schenck’s message did not include any violence. Schenck did not try to harass the government in any way possible, and was just trying to send his opinion about the draft law to the public. Also, Holmes was indeed wrong on his behalf too. “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. … “ Holmes said. However, in Schenck’s leaflets, there was no clear indication of a cause of panic. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision was incorrect.
    Finally, the Supreme Court didn’t consult with the executive and legislative branches. In this case, President Woodrow Wilson needed citizens to fight in the military and this seemed like a superb idea to have a draft. However, Schenck did’t agree with the draft law because it violated the 13th amendment. Because of this uprising of a quarrel with the government by a nonentity, the Supreme Court’s decision of jailing him was wrong.
    All in All, the Supreme Court’s conclusion was incorrect because they contradicted the First Amendment, there was no clear presence of a danger, and they failed to contact the other two branches for more opinions. Schenck should not have been persecuted because he protested a draft in time of war, and this is a legitimate mistake that the Supreme Court should have realized.

  12. Well organized essay. I like the intro quote and your three ideas to support your thesis are clear in the intro paragraph and conclusion and followed throughout in your body paragraphs. I think there is room for improvement in the body paragraphs and I might like to see some of the excess ideas or thoughts replaced with solid arguments or examples to prove your thesis and supporting points. For example, in the 1st paragraph you mention everyone should have the right to express their feelings. That is true and I doubt anyone would reasonably disagree even the Supreme Court, but the issue at hand was not Schenck’s feelings. It was national security vs. free speech. It is useful to highlight or even repeat the core conflict raised in the essay prompt. Very important! It shows you understand the core conundrum and can write an opinionated essay supported by strong arguments which is in large part the purpose of the essay. I might skip that sentence and replace it with the final sentence that says Schenck should be able to protest the draft and follow on with your thesis statement and supporting ideas. Also, be careful that your references are very clear.

    Good transitions at the start of each body paragraph. I like the 1st body paragraph argument, but I would like to see one more example or piece of evidence to support your case. The 2nd paragraph is also a strong point, but be careful to stay on point. Many readers would view Schenck as harassing the government. It may seem subtle, but that opens up your essay to question in the readers mind. I think your point is that nothing in Schenck’s leaflets incited any violence therefore Holmes’ analogy is faulty and the idea of clear and present danger did not exist. Argue that point only for one paragraph. This single argument within one body paragraph must remain tight and on point without overreaching. I had a little trouble following the last paragraph. I didn’t quite understand why the Supreme Court would need to consult the other branches. The court’s goal was to consult and uphold the constitution regardless of what the other branches thought. “This” seemed like a superb idea, “this” uprising, and a “nonentity” were not clear to me especially the nonentity reference. Sometimes I think there is no surer way to lose the reader and kill a paragraph or an essay so I would try to be painfully clear who your subject and object references are. That is a shame because your conclusion is also solid and a few small changes would make this a really strong essay. Also be careful about spelling and punctuation at points.

  13. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.. . .” This was a principle used in founding the United States. As the delegates from each state scrambled to put together a Bill of Rights, many agreed that Freedom of religion, speech, the press, and protest were the most important rights for people of the new countries. In fact, the Pilgrims that started in Massachusetts were forced to move here due to religious persecution. Now 200 years later, should this right still stand, even in times of war? Although the Supreme Court ruling still stands, nowadays it is unnecessary and should be repealed to keep Americans’ sense of freedom. All Americans should have the right to protest anything peacefully, as long as it isn’t leading to violence.
    Woodrow Wilson signed the Espionage Act in 1917 to stop people protesting World War I. Since the world was in crisis at the time, Wilson made a good decision and encouraged all Americans to support the war in Europe. The Act was trying to stop riots and keep peace in the US in time of war. The Espionage Act was, however, not designed to stop all protests of the war. In fact, the act even stated “nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict . . . any discussion, comment, or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government. .. .” This meant that peaceful protests were allowed.
    The issue came up again two months later when Charles Schenck was arrested for handing out leaflets criticizing the government’s new war and draft laws. Schenck was arrested and convicted and sentenced to 6 months in prison. However, Schenck made a valid point that he didn’t violate the Espionage Act and that his arrest violated the First Amendment. The case was brought up to the Supreme Court and the justices unanimously ruled against Schenck. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that Schenck was “obstructing” the draft law and therefore violated the Espionage Act. However, many argued that Schenck was not inciting violence and shouldn’t have been convicted. Nearly 100 years later, the same rule still applies.
    If you go to Times Square, you are likely to see hundreds, maybe thousands of protesters each day. Many protests are about foreign affairs, racial tensions, and the government. As long as these protesters are peaceful, they have every right to protest and say what they think is right. I think that it is almost silly that people can not protest any wars the country is in. As long as their protests are accurate and peaceful, they should have every right to protest, like people protesting another topic. Nearly 100 years later, the Court ruling still stands. I believe that this law needs to be modernized and be repealed or revised. Denying anyone access to protest war is unnecessary. They should have the protection of the First Amendment and they shouldn’t need to worry about being arrested. Many countries with dictators deny rights of protest. However, the United States is one of the oldest democracies and should have every voice heard instead of being quashed.
    In conclusion, the United States government needs to change or nullify the Espionage Act and the court ruling. They are nearly 100 years old, yet still in effect today. The law signed by Woodrow Wilson during World War I should not still be in effect today. How can a country grow if their laws are still the same ones from 1917?

  14. I am trying to map your intro paragraph supporting arguments to your body paragraph arguments and think about the outline and structure. They map loosely, not perfectly, yet I somehow really like your essay. It flows easily and is very detailed. It is definitely one of the better essays on this topic! Your intro includes nearly a full paragraph of scene setting with a couple examples and a powerful question that captures the core of the conflict: should our rights to free speech persist in times of war? Your thesis is very clear. Repeal the act! This is more forceful than most. Not only do I presume you believe the court got it wrong, but you clearly believe the act should be abolished. Interesting..at least to me the reader and I think if I were grading 40 or 50 essays I would appreciate one that keeps my interest.

    Your body paragraphs argue the following points in my perception.
    1. Peaceful protests should be allowed because the Act was never meant to limit free speech.
    2. Schenck was not violent and therefore not really obstructing the draft (at least in the context of the Supreme Court decision)
    3. Our 1st amendment rights date back over a century earlier than any draft law and those longstanding rights should not be compromised.

    As I look again at the structure I have the following comments. I see you mention points 3 and 2 above in the intro paragraph and point 1 really is kind of introduced to the reader in the first body paragraph. In fact, most of the essay argues point 1 and you use the Schenck case and protests in Time Square as examples of the idea peaceful protests should be allowed. While a little different in structure, it works. I might use transitions to make your structure and each separate point more clearly distinct and ordered for the reader. This is a rare case where I think I would have to ask you if I am perceiving your approach or intended structure for the essay correctly. Did you have an outline for the essay prior to writing?

    The conclusion is fine except for that last question. While I like the power a well placed question at the end can provide, I think this question opens your entire essay to contradiction at the end. I’m guessing you expect the reader to say, “No, it can’t grow!” However, I immediately thought that some laws have been in place since Magna Carta for hundreds of years while empires have grown and waned. Property rights remain much the same. Murder and theft are always against the law. I might argue that it is this very stability in the law that allows growth. If possible, don’t let the reader refute your claims (or questions with a specific intended answer). Keep your argument tight.

  16. There have been plenty of controversies across the history of the U.S. Racism and gay rights have been especially big issues in recent years. Nonetheless, the decision of the Supreme Court to put Charles Schenck in jail for six months was one of the most controversial aspects of World War 1. In essence, Schenck was put in jail for distributing leaflets that contained his opinion on a draft that the government was issuing. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision to have Schneck put in jail was wrong. The Supreme Court was irrational in their thinking in that they violated Schenck’s freedom of speech and because the Supreme Court tried to prove that he was a threat to the United States with false statements even though he wasn’t. All in all, a man should be able to protest war or a draft in time of war.
    On one hand, the Supreme Court violated Schenck’s freedom of speech when they made their decision. This was because of the fact that Schenck was just trying to voice his opinion. Like every organization in the modern age, he was trying to let the world know of an issue, an issue that Schenck thought was important. The freedom of speech rightfully allows him to voice his opinion in nearly any given situation, including wartime. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision to send Schenck to jail was a direct violation of his rights. His freedom of speech allowed him to voice his opinion in any way he wants. The Supreme Court had no right to strip him of these rights and therefore the Supreme Court made an irrational decision.
    Surprisingly, during his trial, many believed that Schenck was threatening the security of our country when he voiced his opinion on the draft. Was Schenck really posing a threat to our country when he handed out the leaflets that told America what he felt of the draft? In actuality he wasn’t. Doesn’t everybody have their own opinion? This leaflet doesn’t guarantee that anybody’s opinion changed about the draft. Nor is there any proof that there was a decrease in those who favored the draft. Moreover, Schenck never has been a threat. He voiced his opinion like any other proud American would. He did not serve as a threat. There was no proof that anybody else was encouraged to protest against the draft. Furthermore, the Supreme Court not only violated Schenck’s freedom of speech, but they also used convicted of being a threat to national security…even though he wasn’t.
    To add to this, the Supreme Court used false statements to prove Schenk’s guilt. According to the document that we were given, Mr. Holmes used the analogy that a man falsely saying that there was a fire in a movie theater was similar to Schenck voicing his negative opinion on drafts. Indeed it was clever and attractive. Not many people thought that free speech could be conferred on someone shouting fire in a theater. Nonetheless, as mentioned before, this was assuming that Schenck was a threat even though he wasn’t. Holmes, or more accurately the Supreme Court made assumptions that lead to Schenck’s unfair trial of him being sent to jail.
    Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision was wrong. All in all, the Supreme Court violated Schenck’s freedom of speech and because they falsely accused Schenck of being a threat to the U.S. Moreover, anybody should be able to voice their opinion even in wartime. Nobody should be afraid to voice their opinion. Nobody should be ashamed, no matter how much trouble you might get in with the law.

  17. I like the attempt to provide an historical scene setting by referencing other controversial topics, but when referencing this one I might not say “one of the most controversial aspects of WWI”. That requires you to support or prove your point. Would an historian agree? Are there not many other controversial elements to WWI; the U.S. getting involved overseas, Russia withdrawing from the war effort, whether to fight alongside allies, how to treat Germany after the war, etc. You get the idea. Maybe you could just add this to your list of large controversial topics in America…perhaps say it, “was also one of the more controversial rulings in our history.” That doesn’t really require extra elaboration. You then go on to state the key events and cause, but I would not say “Moreover” to start the next sentence where you state your thesis that the court is wrong. Just say this is what happened…I think the court was wrong. No need for “moreover” in between because you are not listing another added aspect of the event, but expressing your opinion. I might also question if the court was irrational. That is a strong claim that will require a bit of an uphill battle to argue and require a lot of support. After all the justices are among the most respected and thoughtful justices in the land. I, the reader, would hardly consider their judgment irrational. Perhaps flawed. Perhaps biased in some way, but irrational? This is a tough essay topic, but I do like some of your supporting arguments. I will provide more suggestions in the near future.

  18. Every single person on this planet has a different perspective and deserves a voice. What would happen if that was taken away? For example, take the patriots during the Revolutionary War. “No taxation without representation.” Were laws and taxes forced on them? Yes. Did they have any say in what and how laws would be enforced? No. This is exactly the case in the Espionage Act. The people who were affected by this set of laws couldn’t voice their opinion. The Supreme Court was incorrect and a U.S. citizen has every right to protest a war or draft in time of war. The Espionage Act contradicts the First Amendment, other viewpoints could be better than opinions made by people with more power, and taking away the freedom of speech can cause the suffering of people who do not agree with the act.

    First of all, this act completely violates the First Amendment, which clearly states that everyone has the freedom of speech. This gives the Congress a terrible image, who proved themselves that they’re words cannot be trusted. In the prompt, it was stated that there were “penalties up to twenty years in prison for ‘Whoever…shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny…” This act stated everything that was the opposite of the First Amendment, which Congress created.

    Ideas from others can benefit one and the people around him and her. Applying this to the Espionage Act, Schenck had expressed his feelings for this inhumane act, and his thoughts were shared with the rest of the American population. Instead of his ideas being taken into consideration, the Congress immediately shut them down. Holmes’ analogy, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic,” was not applicable to Schneck’s situation. If the Congress listened to and respected Schneck’s ideas, the Espionage Act may have been repealed or at least modified. This would have given satisfaction to everyone who was affected this set of laws.

    Lastly, if someone is deprived of expressing themselves, they may be emotionally or physically trapped. For example, “Schneck was indicted, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months in jail for violating the Espionage Act.” He fought for what he strongly believed in, but was punished for doing so. Furthermore, citizens throughout the U.S. must have felt like they didn’t have the power to do what they wanted and was forced against their will to obey the laws of the Espionage Act. This act caused the pain of countless people. If they had their freedom of speech, they would not have been affected in this way.

    The Espionage Act was an inhumane attempt at forcing citizens follow the ideas of political figures. The Supreme Court making the mistake of passing this act didn’t allow U.S. citizens to protest a war or draft in time of war, which showed just how disorganized the government’s decisions were. The Congress abused their authority and power, causing a pandemonium in the United States, which could very well happen again.

    1. Excellent essay with solid supporting points and evidence. I particularly like the well thought out and very effective hook in the beginning with a poignant example. There are one or two passive sentences you may be able to switch to the active, but that is slitting hairs and this is one of the better essays submitted for a very difficult prompt. Good job and good luck!

  19. This is my essay. I wrote it in half an hour.

    During a time of necessary critical focus and attention, would you be bothered by insults and arguments from other people? Well, of course! This is exactly how the government felt during WWI and it’s also why the government was correct in making and enforcing Espionage Act during times of war. This act prevents anyone who willfully causes mutiny towards the government during times of war. Firstly, arguments and writings that conflict with the government’s actions could lead to revolts or rebellion against the government’s decision. Next, writing badly about the government shows nothing but disloyalty and disrespect to our country. Lastly, these arguments could distract the government from what’s really important, the war at hand.
    To begin with, making problems with the government during a time of war could mislead the country. Revolts could sprout up in different states, and while the U.S. would be busy fighting a war, they would also have to deal with its own civil war at the same time. This could split up our country into two groups, people who are loyal to the government and to the disloyal, which brings me to my next topic.
    Next, criticizing the government through words and actions shows great disloyalty and disrespect to the country. If people really cared about the country they lived in, they’d at least have the courtesy to address their concerns after the war. Saying these things during the time of war shows a lack of respect as well as selfishness.
    Finally, mutiny during a time of war could have sever effects on the war itself. With problems growing in its own country, the US would have to deal with a war as well as internal issues. This is tip the scales in the war and give the other country/countries the upper hand. As well as losing the war, we could end up losing our whole country in the process.
    Now although people may argue that we have freedom of speech, as stated in the 1st Amendment, that does not mean that they could spread rumors and things to demean the government during a time of war. Oliver Wendell Holmes states, “The question in every case is whether 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.” Using an analogy, Holmes conveys that the government should have the right to stop anybody or anyone who tried to bring danger and panic to the country during a time of war.
    To sum it up, the government was correct in enforcing the Espionage Act. Violating this law could cause revolts and problems within the country. Also, the people violating the law show disloyalty and disrespect to the government. Lastly, small protests and arguments could distract the government from focusing on their real problem, the war. As you can see, the U.S. government had good reason to enforce the Espionage Act and was indeed correct.

  20. This is a well thought out and well organized essay. You are one of the first to defend the Espionage Act as your main thesis and that originality should be commended. Don’t be afraid to argue the “other” side and think creatively. As such, it might make your essay more powerful if you consider and address the likely counterpoints to your arguments. The one weakness in this essay is lack of evidence and detail to support your arguments. It is one thing to make a statement or claim or opinion, but it is a whole other thing to prove it (or at least argue it well with examples and evidence). The body paragraphs are generally the place to do that and they are too short. Too thin on examples. You claim it “could” split the country or it “could” mislead the country in an earlier body paragraph. So what? Without evidence you are just postulating and trying to play on the reader’s fear without any evidence that it is even likely. Is there an historical example where it ever “did” do those things?

    The 3rd body paragraph provides more examples and may be your strongest and you usually should lead with your strongest body paragraph. My obvious questions while reading your essay were the following; “In communist Russia it may not be okay to protest your government, but in our democracy it is an inherent right and part of the freedom we fought for over two centuries ago. If the people thought they could stop an unjust war before our boys got killed why would a patriotic citizen sit idly by and let that happen only to speak up after the fact?” I suggest you do not want to leave that open ended for the reader else they can discount your essay entirely. Make them doubt the obvious counter argument. Layer your response with some examples addressing the counterpoints and showing clear evidence in your favor into the appropriate body paragraphs and you could create stronger a more powerful essay.

  21. Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsly shouting in a theatre and causing panic.” Similarly, the Supreme Court’s ruling to arrest Schenck was wrong, and a U.S. citizen should be allowed to protest a war or draft in times of war. Specifically, the Espionage Act violated the first Amendment, Charles Schenck, whom was arrested after violating the Act, was indicting no violence, and the Act violated the 13th Amendment.
    First, citizens in the U.S. being allowed to protest wars or drafts specifically shines through since the Espionage Act violates the 13th Amendment. The first Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” However, after the Espionage Act was passed, during World War 1, Schenck was arrested for violating this Act by printing 50,000 leaflets that contradicted the war and the draft. As illustrated, U.S. citizens should be granted the ability to protest wars and drafts since it violates the first Amendment’s right to free speech. The Supreme Court made an invalid choice.
    In another sense, the fact that Charles Schenck was not initiating any violence during his protest indicates why citizens should be required to protest during wars and drafts. To illustrate, when Holmes argued that Schenck was not protect under the 1st Amendment, Holmes remarked, “…The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger…” To contradict this dispute, Schenck, only printing and distributing the leaflets, was not present any “clear or present danger” since he was not inciting violence. Thus, U.S. citizens should be allowed to protest wars and drafts considering that they do not instigate it through violence or harm. The Supreme Court’s decision was, therefore, wrong.
    Correspondingly, the Espionage Act violates the 13th Amendment; therefore, it should be confirmed that citizens could protest during times of war. To clarify, although Holmes quarrels that the Supreme Court was right in their decision to arrest Schenck whom, “…as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive of evils that Congress has the right to prevent.” In contrast, this decision violates the 13th Amendment since Schenck was not presenting an harm or danger. But, however, his actions were, “…more like someone shouting, not falsly, but truly…” In a sense, the Supreme Court was incorrect in their decision; therefore, U.S. citizens have the right to protest during times of war.
    In the final analysis, the Supreme Court was inaccurate in their decision to arrest Schenck for protesting the Espionage Act, thus citizens do have the juristiction to protest during times of war regarding the war or drafts. This fact is mainly present since the Espionage Act violates the 1st Amendment, there was no clear or present violence, and this act violates the 13th Amendment. The Espionage Act indicates, “…nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict…” However, should the peoples rights to freedom of speech ever by restricted? Not since the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, nor shall it ever be.

    Note: I finished this essay in exactly 40 minutes. I also typed it up exactly from what I wrote in that time frame, so I did not do any extra editing or revising. Looking for as much feeback as possible as well as any general things I can improve on, (structure, grammer, etc) for the next essay and for the exam.

  22. Hi,
    I wrote this essay in 40 minutes. I tried writing two supporting points and one point that goes against my stand to show a broader understanding. Thanks for any feedback.

    A loyal citizen will applaud on the government when it does well, but amend it when it doesn’t. The Supreme Court failed to uphold the 1st amendment. In addition, if the government was to call war unnecessarily, but some people who were restricted to speak their ideas – knew better, it would be an unfortunate tragedy if the disastrous effects of the war occurred whilst they could have been avoided. However, as people think in terms of their close vicinity – family, careers, food, and money – they may not have considered the issues the government is facing. The espionage Act should not have been approved as it contradicts the First Amendment and silences the citizens against their will. However, it could be argued that the Espionage Act was for the greater good of the country.
    The statue of Liberty torch is known as symbol of refuge for those seeking freedom and democracy. However, the Espionage Act contradicts one of our nation greatest attractions. The first Amendment states “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or the press ……” This act rules over both the citizens speech as well as the press for exampling, Charles Schenck was thrown in prison for merely voicing his thoughts, one of his rights! Sometimes, the citizens look of rights die to the Espionage Act, could lead to bigger roadblock and problems.
    In a very unlucky situation, the government could overlook a major problem in an upcoming war. A few wise citizens with a keen eye might spot it though … but they have no way of saving the country possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, resources, and lives – without risking putting themselves in jail for twenty years! As Oliver Wendell, whose words could be used against the Espionage Act said, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.” In the same fashion the government doing wrong cannot be protected and supported as something that is correct no matter the circumstances. One could argue that what the government is doing isn’t wrong.
    People generally do not have a bird’s eye view like the government does. There could be a major problem which people may overlook but the government might know better, but if people stand in the way of people doing the right things the government must take a stand. Such an instance was in 1917: “After voting overwhelmingly for a draft due to lack of volunteers for a war ‘to end all wars’ Congress passed, and President Woodrow Wilson signed into the law, the Espionage Act.” Sometimes, things must be done for the greater good. After all, the people whom America trusts are elected by the Americans themselves.
    Overall, the right decision cannot be defined, as it is unique to every scenario. Citizens deserve their freedom of speech and the right to contradict the government when they believe it wrong. However, they must understand that sometimes the government carries out undesirable actions out of necessity and for the greater good. Whatever happens, Americans should rest in peace knowing they are in safe hands, and though it may waver at time to time, live in a proud democracy.

  23. This is my essay that I wrote in 40 min

    Has someone ever violated your rights before. This is what happens to some people in the 1910s and 1920s due to the Espionage Act. The Espionage act basically put anyone who protested a war the U.S fought, in jail. Therefore, a U.S citizen should be allowed to protest a war because the first amendment entitles a citizen to have a right of speech, and because it doesn’t make sense to punish a person just because they have a different opinion.

    A U.S citizen should be allowed to protest a war because the first amendment entitles a citizen to have a right of speech. For example in the text it says, “a Socialist named Charles Schenck was arrested in Philadelphia for printing and distributing fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war. Schenck was indicted, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months in jail for violating the Espionage Act.” This proves that the government is breaking the law by punishing Charles just because he said his opinion which the government didn’t like. Also the first amendment allows freedom of press, so since Charles put his opinions in the newspaper, the first amendment protects him from being punished as well. Also, “Schenck appealed, arguing that the Act, by prosecuting speech and writing, violated the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This proves that their were a lot of people who were unhappy with the government for making this rule. Therefore, U.S citizen should be allowed to protest a war because the first amendment entitles a citizen to have a right of speech.

    A U.S citizen should be allowed to protest a war because it doesn’t make sense to punish a person just because they have a different opinion. For example in the text it says, “The Espionage Act had a clause that provided penalties up to twenty years in prison for “Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny… or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the U.S” This proves that the government is stopping people from having their own opinions. This isn’t fair for the citizens who think that the U.S shouldn’t be involved with a war. Also in the text it says, “An additional clause indicated ‘nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict . . . any discussion, comment, or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government.’” This proves that the government is trying to make all of their citizens believe in exactly what they’re thinking. Therefore, A U.S citizen should be allowed to protest a war because it doesn’t make sense to punish a person just because they have a different opinion.
    In conclusion a U.S citizen should be allowed to protest a war because the first amendment entitles a citizen to have a right of speech, and because it doesn’t make sense to punish a person just because they have a different opinion. The first amendment allows all citizens to have freedom of speech and press, and the Espionage Act is going against it. Also the Espionage Act is restricting all citizens from having an opinion. In conclusion, imagine a world where no one is allowed to have their own opinion.

  25. Hey so I wrote this in about 30 minutes and revised for about five

    The Espionage Act and Schneck’s trial raised a very important question. Should a US citizen be allowed to protest a war or draft in time of war? One’s answer to this question ultimately depends on their personal philosophy, and what they value. In this case, it’s full freedom of speech or a possible lack of public confidence during war-time. I believe that citizens should be able to protest anything, wartime or not, as long as they are peaceful and not inciting violence.
    The main reason I believe that citizens should be able to protest wars is that citizens have a constitutional right to full speech. If peaceful, non-inciting speech is restricted, it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Schneck was merely handing out flyers that disagreed with the country’s actions; he didn’t incite violence, or threaten anyone, or cause a national panic. The argument that handing out flyers (which, again, merely state opinion) will cause violence, panic or hysteria is frankly ludicrous. Freedom of Speech is the backbone, the cornerstone, the foundation of our democracy. We need to defend it at all costs, especially the speech we disagree with.
    I also disagree with Wendell’s statements about the “fire in a theatre”. Shouting “fire” in a theatre automatically incites action, as the main point of shouting fire is to get people to notice, and thus act upon it. Saying, “I disagree with this war/draft” does not incite anything, as the main point is to express discontent and perhaps change people’s opinions. At the very worst, the protests may change the public’s opinions, so much so that the country pulls out of the war. Even then, swaying the public opinion to affect major decisions requires great planning and good arguments. The general public doesn’t change opinions on a whim, and perhaps the arguments against the war are solid if most of the population agrees with them.
    I also believe that restricting Freedom of Speech during important times of change (like, for example, during a war) is especially dangerous. Choosing to go to war or start a draft is an important decision that should be made with most of the public’s approval. No country should go to war without public support. If someone wants to express their discontent with a war or draft, I believe it is imperative that they do so. Lives are being lost, especially when a draft is concerned. I believe that everyone who wishes to express their opinions should do so, and trust that the best ideas will rise to the top. This is crucial, especially during wartime.
    In sum, I do not agree with the Espionage Act. I believe that Freedom of Speech is crucial to our democracy, and that this freedom is even more important during a war. I also believe that peacefully stating an opinion with arguments to support it is not the same as yelling fire in a theatre. Restricting peaceful statements of opinion sets a dangerous precedent, and I disagree with the Court’s rulings. Protests have brought about great change in our nation. We mustn’t throw that away because of opinions we don’t like.

    1. Excellent essay. Well written. Well organized. Much better job supporting your arguments throughout your body paragraphs. I have very few comments to make it better — small grammar changes only. Remember to use the text on the test to source your evidence and build the arguments in your body paragraphs on exam day. You might want to try Eleven or the Venus essay to practice responding to a literary passage.

      By the way, Russia dropped out of the war alliance after the revolution in 1917, which allowed Germany to put all its might into fighting on one front. They were 40 miles outside Paris when the doughboys arrived. If the Americans didn’t show up exactly when they did, Germany would have likely won WW I, and the rest of last century’s history would perhaps read very differently. Do you still feel the same, or does that change your mind in the slightest regarding the Espionage Act or the right to protest during wartime.

  26. Hey, I wrote this in 40 minutes
    Can you please revise as soon as possible. Thank you

    The act of taking away the freedom to make your own choices violates the first amendment. A controversy arose in the early 1900s due to the reckless and unfair restrictions that the Espionage act placed on individuals who didn’t volunteer to enlist in the military during war time. Oliver Wendell was arrested for opposing this act was convicted guilty by the supreme court for falsely creating panic among the public. I believe that the supreme court is incorrect since Wendell’s act doesn’t violate any amendment, can be a valid argument, and warns people of the unjust laws passed by congress.

    Anyone is entitled to oppose the government as long as they don’t violate any laws or hurt others. Surprisingly, the government took action against Oliver Wendell when he distributed leaflets that denounced the Espionage Act. To advocate, “distributed fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war…congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Since Oliver is an American, he is allowed the right to state his opinion without having legal action taken upon him.

    The main reason to why the supreme court took an incorrect decision in Wendell’s case is because he held up a valid argument. As stated in the text, “…he believed the draft violated the thirteenth amendment…constitute a clear and present danger.” Wendell’s argument was a valid one, as the Espionage Act violated the thirteenth amendment and was dangerous for the public. Not only does Wendell hold up a valid argument, he also warns people of the negative effects of the Espionage act.

    It may be incorrect for a person to falsely shout “fire! Fire!” just to create panic in the public. Oliver Wendell was convicted of performing this act, when in reality, he had done the opposite. According to criticizers of the Espionage Act, “Schneck’s act was more like shouting…truly to people who were buying tickets…that there was a raging fire inside.” Schneck’s act was nothing more than a warning to the public of how congress was crossing its limits and creating unconstitutional laws.

    In conclusion, U.S citizens should be allowed to protest a war or draft in time of war due to their civil liberties. They are only violating a law that is detrimental to the constitution. This is the main reason to why the action taken upon Oliver Wendell, was harsh and unjust. He did not violate any laws, and was only trying to warn others of congress’s wrong decision. He should be acknowledged for holding up a valid argument against a sensitive topic in the early 1900s.

  27. Hey, I wrote this in 40 minutes
    Can you please revise as soon as possible. Thank you

    The act of taking away the freedom to make your own choices violates the first amendment. A controversy arose in the early 1900s due to the reckless and unfair restrictions that the Espionage act placed on individuals who didn’t volunteer to enlist in the military during war time. Oliver Wendell was arrested for opposing this act was convicted guilty by the supreme court for falsely creating panic among the public. I believe that the supreme court is incorrect since Wendell’s act doesn’t violate any amendment, can be a valid argument, and warns people of the unjust laws passed by congress.

    Anyone is entitled to oppose the government as long as they don’t violate any laws or hurt others. Surprisingly, the government took action against Oliver Wendell when he distributed leaflets that denounced the Espionage Act. To advocate, “distributed fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war…congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Since Oliver is an American, he is allowed the right to state his opinion without having legal action taken upon him.

    The main reason to why the supreme court took an incorrect decision in Wendell’s case is because he held up a valid argument. As stated in the text, “…he believed the draft violated the thirteenth amendment…constitute a clear and present danger.” Wendell’s argument was a valid one, as the Espionage Act violated the thirteenth amendment and was dangerous for the public. Not only does Wendell hold up a valid argument, he also warns people of the negative effects of the Espionage act.

    It may be incorrect for a person to falsely shout “fire! Fire!” just to create panic in the public. Oliver Wendell was convicted of performing this act, when in reality, he had done the opposite. According to criticizers of the Espionage Act, “Schneck’s act was more like shouting…truly to people who were buying tickets…that there was a raging fire inside.” Schneck’s act was nothing more than a warning to the public of how congress was crossing its limits and creating unconstitutional laws.

    In conclusion, U.S citizens should be allowed to protest a war or draft in time of war due to their civil liberties. They are only violating a law that is detrimental to the constitution. This is the main reason to why the action taken upon Oliver Wendell, was harsh and unjust. He did not violate any laws, and was only trying to warn others of congress’s wrong decision. He should be acknowledged for holding up a valid argument against a sensitive topic in the early 1900s.

  29. The 1st amendment consists rights, that are taken for granted in the U.S today and is regarded to be the most significant. The freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the freedom of religion are all rights held by U.S citizens. Of these rights, the Supreme Court has violated two of them, with this being the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. They violated the freedom of speech by passing the Espionage Act and violated the freedom of the press by indicting a person for his skepticism of the new act. Overall, the Supreme Court was incorrect because they violated the rights of U.S citizens, was responsible for many young adults leaving their homes, and were neglecting the thoughts of people who disagreed with the policy.

    The Espionage Act violated both the 1st amendment and in some ways the 13th amendment for a number of reasons. One of these reasons being that critics over the years have said that the government has “been blamed for persecuting even the most trivial of acts.” In this case arresting a man by the name Charles Schenck because of his disagreement of the Espionage Act. After all, he just wanted to bring awareness to the issue and did not mean harm. Obviously, the government had different plans calling those who did not want to participate, disloyal and insubordinate. However, it is not until years later that people start to realize this fact, due to the growing number of advocates for the 1st amendment. One could argue that it also violated the 13th amendment, the way young adults were forced out of their homes to serve in the war, which can be seen as slavery.

    This leads to the next point that the Espionage Act, caused many young men to go out their homes “due to the lack of volunteers for the war”. During this era, many families needed their children to find work and due to this policy, it made getting a job almost impossible to do. People as young as 21 were drafted to war, leaving behind their parents and other loved ones. We can see this issue of people leaving households repeating itself over and over again, especially in the war of Vietnam and World War II. If that was not bad enough, men who refused to be drafted to the war had to serve a 20 year jail sentence. By the time they were out of prison, they would already be in their mid 30s to early 40s.

    As said before, Charles Schenck challenged this policy by the government calling it unconstitutional. As a result, the government not only violate the laws of young adults being drafted, but people who criticized the policy as well. For example, Charles Schenck was a Socialist “arrested in Philadelphia for printing and distributing fifteen thousand leaflets that denounced the draft law and the war.” The government, in turn became aggressive and indicted Charles sentencing him to jail, instead of changing their policy. Years later, the Espionage Act became a sensitive topic to talk about because many people were persecuted and some were even killed.

    Therefore, the Supreme Act made a tremendous mistake and the Espionage Act, is one of the underlying reasons the government is seen as unreliable and making things worse off. Of course, not everyone feels this way, but it is worth taking into account just how much the government policy has shaped the lives of Americans living today and how the government can learn from the past. The Espionage Act violated the rights of citizens, persecuted those who challenged the government policy, and brought young adults out of their homes to serve in the war. In conclusion, the government was definitely in the wrong, focusing on themselves rather than the feeling of others, who suffered vastly.

  31. As a citizen of the United States, Charles Schenck, and any other that states their beliefs, should not be apprehended to justice, for that violates the First Amendment. The Espionage Act should not be able to persecute Schenk for his statements in Philadelphia, as he believed it was not right to pass this act. If the First Amendment was not properly embedded in this situation, what order and structure did the Supreme Court apply to their decisions? What is the fault in Schenck’s opinions?

    The Espionage Act, written in 1917, stated that, “Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the U.S….” would be provided with penalties up to twenty years in prison. For Schenck, his intentions were never to make people disregard the nation’s army and cause insubordination. Instead, Schenck only wrote about his beliefs of the Espionage Act, and how “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” (Schenck). However, due to Schenck openly criticizing the decisions of Congress, he was sentenced to six months in prison for violating the Espionage Act. Although Schenck merely stated his opinion on the matter at hand, which would be accepted through the First Amendment, he was punished for his actions. This demonstrates that the Supreme Court was violating the First Amendment, as they did not follow the Constitution, which is supposedly referred to as the “supreme law of the land.”

    It is evident that the Supreme Court was at fault for multiple reasons, and one example that supports this would be found in, shockingly, the Espionage Act itself. The Espionage Act contains the message, “nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict… any discussion, comment, or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government…” Clearly, this depicts how the Espionage Act should not restrict the laws or the policies of the government, which includes the freedom of speech in the First Amendment. Schenck only stated what he believed at the time. He never deliberately enforced people to stay away from the army, nor did he state that he hated his country and was disloyal to it. He merely criticized the actions of Congress, which turned out for the worse. The Espionage Act does indeed limit the power of the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court punished Schenck due to that mindset, leaving them at fault.

    There are many debates on whether or not the Supreme Court did the right thing, and it is very clear why. Schenck should have been allowed to protest, even at a time of war, because the First Amendment simply allowed this. There are multiple reasons that agree that the Supreme Court made the incorrect decision and that any U.S. citizen should be allowed to protest a war or draft in time of war.

  32. ASAP!! Exam in 3 days!!!!!!

    Imagine a world where people could not speak their beliefs and were instead kept under silence by the government. This situation did unfold in the past, which is where the American Revolution came from, causing people with the mindset they had a right to speak their feelings separate from Great Britain. However, in the prompt “Free Speech”, this issue is happening again, this time with Socialist Charles Shneck trying to express his opinion in America’s time of war. The decision the Supreme Court took was completely unfair to Shneck. It deprived him of his rights, such as freedom of speech and of the press. He was not harming anyone with his opinion; therefore, he should not have been put in jail. This is the government going against the Constitution. Finally, this is similar to what happened before the American Revolution occurred. The Founding Fathers of our country fought for our freedom and rights to make it what it is today.

    Primarily, a similar situation to this happened before the American Revolution. A group of people decided they should be able to speak, write, and express their overall opinion freely. THis is why the separation from Great Britain happened. The Founding Fathers of the United States wrote the Bill of Rights with several rules to help form the new country. In the prompt, Shneck argues his case by station, “…the Act, by prosecuting speech and writing, violated the FIrst Amendment: Congress shall make now law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Obviously Congress ignores the FIrst Amendment by making an act that puts people in jail if they express their opinion. The country’s Founding Fathers fought for exactly this matter: freedom and rights to express opinions while the actions of today’s Cogress is ignoring everything Americans fought for by denying Charles Schenck’s rights with the Espionage Act.

    Furthermore, Oliver Wenden Holmes’ insinuates the idea of “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a there and causing a panic…” This statement brings out a new perspective because Charles Schenck’s actions did not harm anyone, which is what would happen if someone abused their rights of freedom of speech by “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. THis leads to the conclusion that the Supreme Court’s decision was unjust because a U.S citizen should be able to express their opinion and protest a war or draft in time of war. Schenck was only harmlessly expressing his opinions by using his freedom of speech and of the press. “In this case Schenck was not inciting violence. He believed the draft violated the 13th amendment.” This proves Shenck’s innocence of violating the Act because it was already violating several amendments.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s desicion was incorrect. A U.S citizen shouldbe allowed to protest a war or draft in time of war becuase they are utilizing their rights. After all, this is what the Founding Fathers fought for, American rights such as freedom of speech and of the press. Charles Shenck was not creating any violence by expressing his rights; therefore, he should not be punished by harmlessly expressing his opinions when the Espionage Act is violating the First Amendment by rejecting his freedom of speech.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

    I wrote this in 45-50 minutes (over the time limit AGAIN :(. I’m not very good at prompts that aren’t stories or something I have a lot of knowledge and strong facts about so I wanted to try this one out. (I was going to do “CIvil Liberties” but I am SO confused on that. I’m not very good at explaining /understanding laws/history as you can probably tell.)

    WILL THESE TYPES OF PROMPTS BE ON THE BCA EXAM BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A STORY AND THEN A PROMPT LIKE “ELEVEN” (I liked that one <–) . IF IT WON'T…. I'M IN TROUBLE PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Please give me feedback on my essay and how to write stronger in these types of prompts "Free Speech" and "Civil Liberties" (I have no idea where to start on that one).
    Also I need to know how to write under the time limit!!!!!!!!! I don't have enough time to check my work :((((

    For this essay, I did 2 arguments when the ideal essay is 3. I knew I wouldn't have enough time so I got right to the conclusion. What do you think about this? Should I have done a third argument and left my essay without a conclusion(because the time will run out in the exam) or is good that is did 2 arguments when I knew I was running out of time. If so, what do you think my third argument should be without much knowledge on this Act . (I kind of understood it from the prompt/edivence and situation but I don't have a third one in mind.) <– help pleasssssse

    ***MY EXAM IS IN 3 DAYS IT'S INSANE*********** help help help pls feedback and how to write and think under time pressure… HUGE THANKS 🙂

  33. Imagine a world where people could not speak their beliefs and were instead kept under silence by the government. This situation did unfold in the past, which is where the American Revolution came from, causing people with the mindset they had a right to speak their feelings separate from Great Britain. However, in the prompt “Free Speech”, this issue is happening again, this time with Socialist Charles Shneck trying to express his opinion in America’s time of war. The decision the Supreme Court took was completely unfair to Shneck. It deprived him of his rights, such as freedom of speech and of the press. He was not harming anyone with his opinion; therefore, he should not have been put in jail. This is the government going against the Constitution. Finally, this is similar to what happened before the American Revolution occurred. The Founding Fathers of our country fought for our freedom and rights to make it what it is today.

    Primarily, a similar situation to this happened before the American Revolution. A group of people decided they should be able to speak, write, and express their overall opinion freely. THis is why the separation from Great Britain happened. The Founding Fathers of the United States wrote the Bill of Rights with several rules to help form the new country. In the prompt, Shneck argues his case by station, “…the Act, by prosecuting speech and writing, violated the FIrst Amendment: Congress shall make now law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Obviously Congress ignores the FIrst Amendment by making an act that puts people in jail if they express their opinion. The country’s Founding Fathers fought for exactly this matter: freedom and rights to express opinions while the actions of today’s Cogress is ignoring everything Americans fought for by denying Charles Schenck’s rights with the Espionage Act.

    Furthermore, Oliver Wenden Holmes’ insinuates the idea of “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a there and causing a panic…” This statement brings out a new perspective because Charles Schenck’s actions did not harm anyone, which is what would happen if someone abused their rights of freedom of speech by “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. THis leads to the conclusion that the Supreme Court’s decision was unjust because a U.S citizen should be able to express their opinion and protest a war or draft in time of war. Schenck was only harmlessly expressing his opinions by using his freedom of speech and of the press. “In this case Schenck was not inciting violence. He believed the draft violated the 13th amendment.” This proves Shenck’s innocence of violating the Act because it was already violating several amendments.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s desicion was incorrect. A U.S citizen shouldbe allowed to protest a war or draft in time of war becuase they are utilizing their rights. After all, this is what the Founding Fathers fought for, American rights such as freedom of speech and of the press. Charles Shenck was not creating any violence by expressing his rights; therefore, he should not be punished by harmlessly expressing his opinions when the Espionage Act is violating the First Amendment by rejecting his freedom of speech.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

    I wrote this in 45-50 minutes (over the time limit AGAIN :(. I’m not very good at prompts that aren’t stories or something I have a lot of knowledge and strong facts about so I wanted to try this one out. (I was going to do “CIvil Liberties” but I am SO confused on that. I’m not very good at explaining /understanding laws/history as you can probably tell.)

    WILL THESE TYPES OF PROMPTS BE ON THE BCA EXAM BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A STORY AND THEN A PROMPT LIKE “ELEVEN” (I liked that one <–) . IF IT WON'T…. I'M IN TROUBLE PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Please give me feedback on my essay and how to write stronger in these types of prompts "Free Speech" and "Civil Liberties" (I have no idea where to start on that one).
    Also I need to know how to write under the time limit!!!!!!!!! I don't have enough time to check my work :((((

    For this essay, I did 2 arguments when the ideal essay is 3. I knew I wouldn't have enough time so I got right to the conclusion. What do you think about this? Should I have done a third argument and left my essay without a conclusion(because the time will run out in the exam) or is good that is did 2 arguments when I knew I was running out of time. If so, what do you think my third argument should be without much knowledge on this Act . (I kind of understood it from the prompt/edivence and situation but I don't have a third one in mind.) <– help pleasssssse

    1. In your essay, you are addressing issues that were not discussed in the prompt or in the reading. For instance, you started talking about the American Revolution and Great Britain, when that was not mentioned in the reading. Your essay was written well with quotes, but it will not be taken into deep consideration if you only have two body paragraphs. Your two body paragraphs were lengthy, so they could be separated into three distinct ideas.
      To write under the time limit, try to limit each paragraph to a certain number of sentences. This way, it will be organized and will follow the guidelines of a five paragraph essay. If you are running out of time in the exam, you may want to try writing the first two sentences of the last paragraph and then the conclusion. This way, the people editing your essay will know what you plan to discuss. As I said before, you can separate the two ideas you already have into three, so that you don’t have to come up with a new idea on the spot. Work with what you have rather than waste time thinking of new ideas.
      Hope this was comment was helpful!

      1. Thank you, your comment was helpful.

        Taking into consideration your advice of the lengthy paragraphs/distinct ideas what would your three arguments look like if you were to answer the prompt? This passage was slightly difficult to understand, which is why I could not think of three or more arguments I could put in my essay very quickly.

        Also, do you know if the Begen essay prompt will look more like this one, or a story like “All Summer In a Day” or “Eleven”?

  34. In your essay, you are addressing issues that were not discussed in the prompt or in the reading. For instance, you started talking about the American Revolution and Great Britain, when that was not mentioned in the reading. Your essay was written well with quotes, but it will not be taken into deep consideration if you only have two body paragraphs. Your two body paragraphs were lengthy, so they could be separated into three distinct ideas.
    To write under the time limit, try to limit each paragraph to a certain number of sentences. This way, it will be organized and will follow the guidelines of a five paragraph essay. If you are running out of time in the exam, you may want to try writing the first two sentences of the last paragraph and then the conclusion. This way, the people editing your essay will know what you plan to discuss. As I said before, you can separate the two ideas you already have into three, so that you don’t have to come up with a new idea on the spot. Work with what you have rather than waste time thinking of new ideas.
    Hope this was comment was helpful!

  35. Thank you, your comment was helpful.

    Taking into consideration your advice of the lengthy paragraphs/distinct ideas what would your three arguments look like if you were to answer the prompt? This passage was slightly difficult to understand, which is why I could not think of three or more arguments I could put in my essay very quickly.

    Also, do you know if the Begen essay prompt will look more like this one, or a story like “All Summer In a Day” or “Eleven”?

    1. The Summer and Eleven prompt are more representative. This is a tricky essay prompt designed to hone your ability to put together a difficult argumentative essay in a short time period. The most important thing is to make sure you are answering the question prompt. It is sometimes easy to wander from the question w/o realizing it, so stay focused and your three arguments will most likely be on topic.

  36. Throughout American history, the Supreme Court has made many decisions and approved laws and acts that may or may not be interpreted as an infringement on the free speech of their citizens. In this case the Supreme Court were incorrect in their decision on if Charles Schenck should be convicted of violating the Espionage Act due to the fact that Schenck was only exercising his right to free speech. He was only using this right to voice his opinion on a war and a law he did not believe in nor liked. In addition to this, the Supreme Court ruled him in violation of the Espionage Act, for disrupting wartime procedures of the government, though the actual act states that comment, discussion, and criticism on the acts and policies of the government are not prohibited as a result of this act. Thirdly, Oliver Wendell Holmes’ analogy used to describe Schenck’s actions compared him to one causing mass panic by shouting fire in the theatre when there is no such fire, however this analogy is extreme considering Schenck’s act did not involve anyone in any harm nor cause any mass panic. Therefore, the Supreme Court were incorrect to prosecute Charles Schenck.
    To begin, the Supreme Court’s decision on whether Charles Schenck was guilty of violating the Espionage Act was incorrect because Charles Schenck was protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment states that,”Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech…” , meaning that Schenck’s actions were protected by the First Amendment, as he was using his right of free speech. The only time this law makes an exception is when something is said that may cause potential danger, and Schenck’s words, in this case written, were not causing any harm. They were criticising the government, which the government may not agree with, but it comes under the category of free speech. Therefore, Charles Schenck was protected by the First Amendment, meaning that the Supreme Court were wrong to decide that he was guilty of violating the Espionage Act.
    Consequently, the decision of the Supreme Court on this matter was not correct because Charles Schenck was not in violation of the Espionage Act. Although the Supreme Court ruled his act of printing and distributing leaflets that denounced World War I and the Espionage Act as a violation of the latter act, it was clearly not as in the Espionage Act it states,”nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict . . . any discussion, comment, or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government. .. .” Therefore, Schenck was allowed to comment on or criticise the government, meaning he was not in violation of this law. In addition, the Espionage Act also discussed that a person may serve jail time for any time of insubordination or treason. However, Schenck committed neither. Thus, Charles Schenck did not violate the Espionage Act.
    Lastly, the Charles Schenck was not guilty of violating this law because the Supreme Court also provided an example to fit his ‘crime’ which exaggerated his actions, causing the unanimous vote against him. The man who gave this analogy was Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said,“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. … The question in every case is whether 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.” Many believed this as it was a very believable concept, and something almost all agreed on; that someone who committed a crime like falsely shouting fire and causing panic should not be protected by the First Amendment. In truth, however, Schenck did not cause any panic or present any danger as he was voicing his own opinion, and was not presenting it in any kind of dangerous way, or a way one should be concerned about. This analogy was a harsh way of describing Schenck’s actions, which were mostly harmless, and not a statement of intent, but a statement of opinion. This was nothing to fear, as he was not dangerous to the state, nor was he going to become mutinous to his country. So, the Supreme Court was not correct to decide that Charles Schenck violated the Espionage Act.
    In conclusion, the Supreme Court was incorrect in their decision that Charles Schenck had broken the law by violating the Espionage Act because Schenck was protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, had not actually broken the Espionage Act law, and also because his appeal was put down due to to Oliver Wendell Holmes analogy, which was an incorrect overexaggeration. Schenck had not done anything wrong, and was using his right as a citizen of the United States to speak freely. Therefore, Charles Schenck did not commit a crime and was not in violation of the Espionage Act.

    1. Did you write that in 40 minutes? You touch upon the key points and organize your essay well. You explain your ideas clearly and provide good evidence to build your case. Make sure to leave time to edit and try to practice simplifying several of the sentences. A few tend to run on (e.g., the Supreme Court were incorrect in their decision on if Charles Schenck should be convicted…how might you rephrase this more concisely?) or slip into a passive voice (e.g., The man who gave this analogy was Oliver Wendell Holmes vs perhaps Holmes presented the analogy…)

    2. Try to simplify some of these sentences like, ” In addition to this, the Supreme Court ruled him in violation of the Espionage Act, for disrupting wartime procedures of the government, though the actual act states that comment, discussion, and criticism on the acts and policies of the government are not prohibited as a result of this act.” How might you rewrite it? Also, the Supreme Court is generally considered one institution and not plural. You have a lot of great ideas, but it is a little difficult to read through the introduction. If you can streamline your essay (perhaps with an edit), you should do well. By the way, I agree. The “yelling fire in a theater” example is a terrible analogy. My history teachers regurgitated the line without thought or analysis. They never explained that this decision was politically motivated by President Woodrow Wilson. What does that say about separation of powers and checks and balances in practice? If you think it is a hypothetical question, you should know that President Obama tried to enforce the Espionage Act on several occasions. The Espionage Act is alive and well today. Should it be?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back To Top