Talk:Schenck v. United States

Added Images of Leaflet

I added images of the leaflet from the official record. I think it reveals the absurdity of this oft-cited disposition. No fair minded person could say this is not protected speech under the First Amendment.—bryanlafonte (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

advising & helping some one to commit a crime is not "free" speech in 2016. It's very expensive speech. Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Closing paragraph

In light of all the kvetching by leftist editors about "original research" and conclusions not being valid, what a surprise that none of you care that the last pararaph is just made up, with zero citations. It is not still good law, and it certainly isn't indisputably still good law;

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Rivalin (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rivalin:  Done Daask (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

opinion deleted

Deleted a line claiming the case is "one of the worst rulings" in U.S. history is from a random website called Money Inc doing a top 10 list in an opinion piece. 75.88.103.253 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How dare you! (Kidding!) I was annoyed to find out the info deleted, but after thinking about it, I understand your motivations and share the concern about subjectivity. But on the other hand, if more references, independent and reliable, can be found where it is stated also that it is one of the worst decisions of the SCOTUS, maybe it should be reinstated. Even though it may be a subjective ranking, it may reflect the opinion of legal experts throughout the country, which is useful information that has its merits of inclusion in the article. --Thinker78 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 Hon

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Melanael (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ctysick (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Garbled account of Baltzer

From the Background section: "In the first case arising from this campaign to come before the Court, Baltzer v. United States, 248 U.S. 593 (1918), Schenck had signed a petition criticizing his governor's administration of the draft, threatening him with defeat at the polls. They were charged with obstructing the recruitment and enlistment service, and convicted." So was Schenck a party in Baltzer, or is this an error? Who are the "they" that were charged and convicted? JBritnell (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The defendants were "twenty‐seven socialists from a small farming community in South Dakota". I don't know if Schenck was one of them. Thinker78 (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Responding to request for feedback at WT:SCOTUS – I can't find any reliable sources connecting Schenck to the Baltzer case, which isn't too surprising since Schenck was (per our article) from Pennsylvania, not South Dakota. (This appears to be the list of 27 defendants in Baltzer, and Schenck isn't on it.) Unless anyone can find a source I'm missing, I'd suggest changing the sentence to "the defendants had signed a petition criticizing their governor's administration of the draft..." or something like that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ thanks for your prompt reply! I checked the link you provided but I couldn't find the names of the defendants. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If you zoom in on the document, you should see "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff --vs-- Emanuel Baltzer, Gottfried Baltzer, Fritrich Leneschmidt," and a bunch of other people. Baltzer, Baltzer, Leneschmidt, and the others are the defendants. There's a similar list in this journal article, pg. 244, footnote 19. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented [1]. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

References