Which case upheld the Clear and Present Danger standard during wartime for distributing anti-draft leaflets?

• A. New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
• B. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
• C. Schenck v. United States (1919)
• D. Reynolds v. United States (1878)

Answer: (C)

The concept being tested is how free speech can be limited in wartime when it poses a real danger to the war effort. In this context, the court asked whether distributing anti-draft leaflets could be punished because it created a clear and present danger to national interests. In Schenck v. United States, the defendant distributed leaflets urging resistance to the draft during World War I. The Court upheld his conviction, applying the clear and present danger standard to hold that such speech could be restricted because, in the wartime setting, it posed a real threat to the government’s ability to wage war. This case solidified the Clear and Present Danger doctrine as the test for restricting speech during national emergencies.

Brandenburg v. Ohio later shifted the framework to protect speech unless it is directed to inciting or likely to produce imminent lawless action, narrowing the scope of later cases. The other listed cases address different First Amendment issues—prior restraint in publishing state secrets and the religious practice of polygamy—so they don’t fit the wartime anti-draft leaflets scenario.