I so enjoy constitutional law. The bases of all our laws comes from the constitution. At least they should.
Right now, I'm struggling with one of the books we have to finish by next week. I'm trying to be objective because that's what I'll need to do when I'm a lawyer and in law. It is not about emotions and convictions but rather about upholding and acting according to the law.
When should speech be subjected to limits?
In Schenck v. United States, Holmes makes the distinction that 'clear and present danger' is the rule of thumb in speech which could incite actions.
-But Schenck's actions were not nearly as harmful as Holmes wants us to believe. Though he said that any means necessary should be used to stop the recruitment and drafting of U.S. citizens for war, most of what Schenck called for was constitutionally covered as a right to protest.
Granted the case was from 1919 and Brandenburg called for "imminent lawless action" where circumstances were narrowed and really Schenck is not as important as it once was but "clear and present danger" and the analogy of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is still referenced in recent cases.
Yay law!
ReplyDelete