. . . . . . "63"^^ . "Schenck v. United States Leaflet .jpg"@en . . . . . "47"^^ . . . . "--01-09"^^ . . . . . "None"@en . . . . . . "1919"^^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "\u30B7\u30A7\u30F3\u30AF\u5BFE\u30A2\u30E1\u30EA\u30AB\u5408\u8846\u56FD\u4E8B\u4EF6\uFF08\u30B7\u30A7\u30F3\u30AF\u305F\u3044\u30A2\u30E1\u30EA\u30AB\u304C\u3063\u3057\u3085\u3046\u3053\u304F\u3058\u3051\u3093\u3001\u82F1:Schenck v. United States\uFF09\u306F\u30011919\u5E74\u306B\u30A2\u30E1\u30EA\u30AB\u5408\u8846\u56FD\u6700\u9AD8\u88C1\u5224\u6240\u3067\u5224\u6C7A\u304C\u4E0B\u3055\u308C\u305F\u7B2C\u4E00\u6B21\u4E16\u754C\u5927\u6226\u4E2D\u306E\u5FB4\u5175\u306B\u5BFE\u3057\u3066\u88AB\u544A\u306F\u30A2\u30E1\u30EA\u30AB\u5408\u8846\u56FD\u61B2\u6CD5\u4FEE\u6B63\u7B2C1\u6761\u306B\u4FDD\u8A3C\u3055\u308C\u308B\u8A00\u8AD6\u306E\u81EA\u7531\u3092\u6301\u3063\u3066\u3044\u308B\u304B\u3068\u3044\u3046\u554F\u984C\u306B\u95A2\u3059\u308B\u5224\u6C7A\u3067\u3042\u308B\u3002 \u6700\u7D42\u7684\u306B\u3053\u306E\u5224\u4F8B\u306F\u300C\u660E\u767D\u304B\u3064\u73FE\u5728\u306E\u5371\u967A\u300D\u898F\u5247\u3092\u7BC9\u3044\u305F\u3082\u306E\u3068\u306A\u3063\u305F\u3002"@ja . . . . . . . . . . . "U.S. Const. amend. I;"@en . . "\u30B7\u30A7\u30F3\u30AF\u5BFE\u30A2\u30E1\u30EA\u30AB\u5408\u8846\u56FD\u4E8B\u4EF6\uFF08\u30B7\u30A7\u30F3\u30AF\u305F\u3044\u30A2\u30E1\u30EA\u30AB\u304C\u3063\u3057\u3085\u3046\u3053\u304F\u3058\u3051\u3093\u3001\u82F1:Schenck v. United States\uFF09\u306F\u30011919\u5E74\u306B\u30A2\u30E1\u30EA\u30AB\u5408\u8846\u56FD\u6700\u9AD8\u88C1\u5224\u6240\u3067\u5224\u6C7A\u304C\u4E0B\u3055\u308C\u305F\u7B2C\u4E00\u6B21\u4E16\u754C\u5927\u6226\u4E2D\u306E\u5FB4\u5175\u306B\u5BFE\u3057\u3066\u88AB\u544A\u306F\u30A2\u30E1\u30EA\u30AB\u5408\u8846\u56FD\u61B2\u6CD5\u4FEE\u6B63\u7B2C1\u6761\u306B\u4FDD\u8A3C\u3055\u308C\u308B\u8A00\u8AD6\u306E\u81EA\u7531\u3092\u6301\u3063\u3066\u3044\u308B\u304B\u3068\u3044\u3046\u554F\u984C\u306B\u95A2\u3059\u308B\u5224\u6C7A\u3067\u3042\u308B\u3002 \u6700\u7D42\u7684\u306B\u3053\u306E\u5224\u4F8B\u306F\u300C\u660E\u767D\u304B\u3064\u73FE\u5728\u306E\u5371\u967A\u300D\u898F\u5247\u3092\u7BC9\u3044\u305F\u3082\u306E\u3068\u306A\u3063\u305F\u3002"@ja . . . "Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it was intended to result in a crime and created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war."@en . . "10"^^ . "249"^^ . . . . . . . "Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States"@en . . "100"^^ . . . . . "Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect the defendants from prosecution, even though, \"in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.\" In this case, Holmes said, \"the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.\" Therefore, the defendants could be punished. The Court continued to follow this reasoning to uphold a series of convictions arising out of prosecutions during wartime, but Holmes began to dissent in the case of Abrams v. United States, insisting that the Court had departed from the standard he had crafted for them, and had begun to allow punishment for ideas. However, the Court has set another line of precedents to govern cases in which the constitutionality of a statute is challenged on its face. In 1969, Schenck was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot)."@en . "Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States"@en . . . . . . "1121122393"^^ . "The leaflet at issue in Schenck v. United States"@en . . "\u30B7\u30A7\u30F3\u30AF\u5BFE\u30A2\u30E1\u30EA\u30AB\u5408\u8846\u56FD\u4E8B\u4EF6"@ja . . . . . . . "\u7533\u514B\u8BC9\u5408\u4F17\u56FD\u6848\uFF08Schenck v. United States\uFF1B U.S. 47 (1919)\uFF09\u662F\u7F8E\u56FD\u8054\u90A6\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u9662\u5224\u51B3\u7684\u4E00\u5B97\u652F\u63011917\u5E74\u95F4\u8C0D\u6CD5\u7684\u6848\u4F8B\uFF0C\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u9662\u5728\u6B64\u6848\u4E2D\u6307\u51FA\u88AB\u544A\u65E0\u6743\u63F4\u5F15\u7F8E\u56FD\u5BAA\u6CD5\u7B2C\u4E00\u4FEE\u6B63\u6848\u5305\u542B\u7684\u8A00\u8BBA\u81EA\u7531\u6743\u5229\u53BB\u6279\u8BC4\u7F8E\u56FD\u653F\u5E9C\u5728\u4E00\u6218\u65F6\u671F\u7684\u5F81\u5175\u884C\u4E3A\u3002\u6700\u5F8C\u672C\u6848\u5EFA\u7ACB\u4E86\u6807\u51C6\uFF0C\u76F4\u52301927\u5E74\u5176\u5F71\u54CD\u529B\u624D\u9010\u6E10\u51CF\u5F31\uFF0C\u800C\u5BF9\u8A00\u8BBA\u81EA\u7531\u7684\u9650\u5236\u6700\u7EC8\u5728\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u96621969\u5E74\u4F5C\u51FA\u7684\u6807\u51C6\u4E2D\u88AB\u653E\u5BBD\u3002"@zh . "\u7533\u514B\u8BC9\u5408\u4F17\u56FD\u6848\uFF08Schenck v. United States\uFF1B U.S. 47 (1919)\uFF09\u662F\u7F8E\u56FD\u8054\u90A6\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u9662\u5224\u51B3\u7684\u4E00\u5B97\u652F\u63011917\u5E74\u95F4\u8C0D\u6CD5\u7684\u6848\u4F8B\uFF0C\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u9662\u5728\u6B64\u6848\u4E2D\u6307\u51FA\u88AB\u544A\u65E0\u6743\u63F4\u5F15\u7F8E\u56FD\u5BAA\u6CD5\u7B2C\u4E00\u4FEE\u6B63\u6848\u5305\u542B\u7684\u8A00\u8BBA\u81EA\u7531\u6743\u5229\u53BB\u6279\u8BC4\u7F8E\u56FD\u653F\u5E9C\u5728\u4E00\u6218\u65F6\u671F\u7684\u5F81\u5175\u884C\u4E3A\u3002\u6700\u5F8C\u672C\u6848\u5EFA\u7ACB\u4E86\u6807\u51C6\uFF0C\u76F4\u52301927\u5E74\u5176\u5F71\u54CD\u529B\u624D\u9010\u6E10\u51CF\u5F31\uFF0C\u800C\u5BF9\u8A00\u8BBA\u81EA\u7531\u7684\u9650\u5236\u6700\u7EC8\u5728\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u96621969\u5E74\u4F5C\u51FA\u7684\u6807\u51C6\u4E2D\u88AB\u653E\u5BBD\u3002"@zh . "18558"^^ . . . . . "Schenck v. United States"@en . "unanimous"@en . "Schenck v. United States"@en . . . . . . . . . "Schenck v. United States,"@en . . . . "Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect the defendants from prosecution, even though, \"in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.\" In this case, Holmes said, \"the words used are used in such ci"@en . . . . . . . "\u7533\u514B\u8BC9\u5408\u4F17\u56FD\u6848"@zh . . . . "168894"^^ . "Holmes"@en . . . . . "Defendants convicted, E.D. Pa.; motion for new trial denied, 253 F. 212"@en . . . . "1919"^^ . . . . "Reverse"@en . . . . . "Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444"@en . "left"@en . . "--03-03"^^ . "Obverse"@en . . . .