Schenck v. United States
E32820
Schenck v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the “clear and present danger” test, allowing the government to restrict speech during wartime.
All labels observed (6)
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T252939 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Schenck v. United States Context triple: [First Amendment to the United States Constitution, hasLandmarkCase, Schenck v. United States]
-
A.
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Schenck v. United States Target entity description: Schenck v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the “clear and present danger” test, allowing the government to restrict speech during wartime.
-
A.
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
C.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark free speech case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ freedom of speech ⓘ |
| arguedYear | 1919 ⓘ |
| category |
United States free speech case
ⓘ
World War I era civil liberties case ⓘ |
| citation | 249 U.S. 47 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision | First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedYear | 1919 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1919-03-03 ⓘ |
| defendant |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| doctrineEstablished | clear and present danger test ⓘ |
| factSummary |
Charles Schenck distributed leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I
ⓘ
Schenck v. United States self-linksurface differs ⓘ
surface form:
Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military
|
| famousPhrase | shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic ⓘ |
| fullName |
Schenck v. United States
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
|
| historicalContext | World War I ⓘ |
| holding |
Conviction under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets during wartime was constitutional
ⓘ
Schenck v. United States self-linksurface differs ⓘ
surface form:
The First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent
|
| impact |
expanded government power to restrict speech during wartime
ⓘ
influenced later First Amendment jurisprudence ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| laterCharacterization | often criticized as overly restrictive of free speech ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
First Amendment freedom of speech
ⓘ
application of the Espionage Act of 1917 ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ⓘ |
| lowerCourtOutcome | conviction affirmed ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ⓘ |
| opinionType | unanimous opinion ⓘ |
| page | 47 ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Charles T. Schenck ⓘ |
| precedentStatus | binding precedent at the time of decision ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Abrams v. United States
ⓘ
Brandenburg v. Ohio ⓘ Debs v. United States ⓘ Gitlow v. New York ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| standardAnnounced | whether the words used create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent ⓘ |
| statuteInvolved | Espionage Act of 1917 ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
anti-draft advocacy
ⓘ
political speech ⓘ |
| subsequentDevelopment | clear and present danger test later narrowed and modified by subsequent Supreme Court decisions ⓘ |
| timePeriod |
World War I
ⓘ
surface form:
World War I era
|
| volume | 249 ⓘ |
| vote | 9–0 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Schenck v. United States Description of subject: Schenck v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the “clear and present danger” test, allowing the government to restrict speech during wartime.
Referenced by (19)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
"Clear and present danger" doctrine
this entity surface form:
Schenck v. United States opinion
this entity surface form:
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
this entity surface form:
The First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent
this entity surface form:
Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military