Charles Schenck Legal Opinion

1079 Words5 Pages
Legal Opinion: Schenck v. the United States March 11, 2014 Question Presented: Is Charles Schenck found guilty of violating the Espionage Act; or does Schenk’s freedom of speech given to him by the First Amendment triumph over the Espionage Act? Short Opinion Statement: No, Charles Schenck should not be found found guilty of violating the Espionage Act. Schenck is only exercising his right to freedom of speech, and has full protection from the First Amendment of the Constitution. Evidence along with case precedents show that Schenck is innocent. Facts: The tweet seen around the world. For his tweet, Charles Schenck, a prominent socialist, was charged by the U.S government for violating the Espionage Act. With over 400,000…show more content…
What he did does not fall under any of the exceptions in which you cannot be protected by your right to freedom of speech; those exceptions include using the right to protect yourself when inciting violence, conflict, shouting threats, or harassment etc. Schenck participated in none of those things. Defense attorney Brennan Stevens made a valid point that all justices agreed on, “It is clear his words were not obscene or fighting words, the tweet did not violate slander because his words were opinionated.” Schenck was simply stating he believed forcing men into involuntary solitude was wrong and against the Thirteenth…show more content…
enemies during wartime. However, the “War of Terror” was never officially declared a war, making it void to use as a reason to convict Charles Schenk. What if the “War on Terror” was officially declared a war? In that case, it would be valid to charge Charles Schenck of violating the Espionage Act. This claim can be supported by the Debs v. United States case, which took time during World War I. Eugene V Debs held a speech praising those who refused to serve in the military and obstructed recruitment - as a result he was sentenced ten years in prison. By Eugene holding his speech he is showing support for the enemy. Justice Katelyn asked a question regarding the Cohen v. California case in which a boy was protected by his First Amendment rights for wearing a shirt that said “stop the draft.” The question was directed towards United States attorneys Jacob Gore and Tyler Kerwin; the question presented was “If Paul Cohen was protected by his First Amendment rights for expressing his feelings against the draft, how does it differ from Charles Schenk expressing his feelings against the draft via social media?” Once again, United States attorneys disregarded the question and searched for loopholes to avoid a solid

More about Charles Schenck Legal Opinion

Open Document