SCHENCK VS USBrief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, Schenck (Petitioner), distributed mailers that opposed the draft (compulsory enrollment in the armed forces)during World War .Synopsis of !ule of "a#. When speech presents a clear and present danger of bringing about harm that $ongress has the po#er to pre%ent, restrictions on such speech are constitutional.Facts. The Petitioner sent mailers to all men that #ere drafted into the #ar. The flyer consisted of & pages that implored the draftees to '(ssert )our !ights* and standup against the draft. The !espondent, the +nited States (!espondent), charged the Petitioner #ith conspiracy to %iolate the ,spionage (ct of -.-/ by encouraging insubordination in the military.ssue. s the Petitioner0s e1pression of his opinion of the draft protected speech under theFirst (mendment of the +nited States $onstitution ($onstitution)23eld. 4o. Because the nation is at #ar these types of e1pression encouraging disruption of #artime acti%ities cannot be tolerated.5iscussion. 4o actual obstruction of military recruiting resulted from the Petitioner0s actions. 3o#e%er, the circumstance of the times is #hat makes this unprotected speech. t #as e6uated to yelling, 'Fire7* in a cro#ded theatre. t #as meant to induce panic and disrupt the security actions of the nation.TERMINIELLO v. CHICAGOFacts of the Case 8 Father (rthur Terminiello, in an auditorium in $hicago, deli%ered a%itriolic speech in #hich he critici9ed %arious political and racial groups and %iciously condemned the protesting cro#d that had gathered outside the auditorium. Policemen assigned to the e%ent #ere unable to pre%ent se%eral disturbances by the :angry and turbulent: cro#d. The police arrested Terminiello for :breach of the peace.: 3e #as then tried and con%icted for his central role in inciting a riot.Questio 8 5id the $hicago ordinance %iolate Terminiello;s right of free e1pression guaranteed by the First (mendment2Coc!usio8 n a decision, the $ourt held that the :breach of the peace: ordinance unconstitutionally infringed upon the freedom of speech. 4oting that :?t@he %itality of ci%il and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion,: the $ourt held that speech could be restricted only in the e%ent that it #as :likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substanti%e e%il that rises far abo%e public incon%enience, annoyance, or unrest.: Austice 5ouglas #rote that :a function of free speech under our system is to in%ite dispute. t may indeed best ser%e its high purpose #hen it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction #ith conditions as they are, or e%en stirs people to anger.:FEINER VS NE" #ORKBriefFactSummary. The Petitioner, Feiner (Petitioner), #as con%icted of disorderly conduct for refusing to stop gi%ing a speech on a public side#alk once the cro#d started to get a little ro#dy.Synopsis of !ule of "a#. When there is clear and present danger of a riot, then the police may restrict speech.Facts. The Petitioner #as addressing a group of /< persons gathered on the side#alk. Theoriginal purpose of the speech #as to in%ite listeners to attend a meeting, but he also made derogatory marks to#ards some political officials. "ater, a neighbor complained to the police and & units #ere dispatched to the scene. (t that time people #ere spilling intothe street and disrupting traffic. Bne officer asked the Petitioner to stop talking, but he refused se%eral times and #as e%entually arrested.ssue. Was the disruption of the speech to pre%ent a riot constitutional23eld. )es. The con%iction should not be re%ersed because there #as great potential for a riot and the Petitioner defied the police re6uest.5issent. The facts do not sho# that a riot #as imminent. This is Cust a con%enient #ay forpolice to censor unpopular %ie#points.5iscussion. ( person does not ha%e the right to free speech #hen it #ill result in a riot. The Petitioner intended to incite the public #ith his #ords. Therefore, the police had a legitimate interest in maintaining the peace and order of the community that out#eighedthe Petitioner0s freedom of speech.Primicias %s. Fugoso ?"=-DEEE. Aan &/, -.>D@5octrine8$lear and Present 5anger Test, Freedom of (ssembly and ,1pressionF($TS8This case is an action of mandamus instituted by petitioner $ipriano Primicias, manager of the$oalesced Finority Parties, against respondent Fanila $ity Fayor, Galeriano Fugoso, to compel thelatter to issue a permit for the holding of a public meeting at the Pla9a Firanda on 4o% -H, -.>/. Thepetitioner re6uested for a permit to hold a 'peaceful public meeting*.3o#e%er, the respondent refused to issue such permit because he found 'that there is a reasonable ground to belie%e, basing upon pre%ious utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches #ill be deli%ered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people intheir go%ernment, and in the duly peace and a disruption of public order.*!espondent based his refusal to the !e%ised Brdinances of -.&/ prohibiting as an offenseagainst public peace, and penali9es as a misdemeanor, :any act, in any public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or e1cite a riotI or collect #ith other persons in a body or cro#d for any unla#ful purposeI or disturb or dis6uiet any congregation engaged in any la#ful assembly.: ncluded herein is Sec. ---., Free use of Public Place.SS+,8Whether or not the Fayor has the right to refuse to issue permit hence %iolating freedomof assembly.3,"58The ans#er is negati%e. Supreme $ourt states that the freedom of speech, and to peacefully assemble and petition the go%ernment for redress of grie%ances, are fundamental personal rights of the people recogni9ed and guaranteed by the constitution. 3o#e%er, these rights are not absolute. They can be regulated under the state0s police po#er J that they should not be inCurious to the e6ual enCoyment of others ha%ing e6ual rights, nor to the rights of the community or society. The $ourt holds that there can be & interpretations of Sec. ---.8 -) the Fayor of the $ity of Fanila is %ested #ith unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a la#ful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and other public places of the $ity of FanilaI and &) The right of the Fayor is subCect to reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used #ith the %ie# to pre%ent confusion by o%erlapping, to secure con%enient use of the streets and public places by others, and to pro%ide ade6uate and proper policing to minimi9e the risk of disorder. Thecourt fa%ored the second construction since the first construction is tantamount to authori9ing the Fayor to prohibit the use of the streets. +nder our democratic system of go%ernment no such unlimited po#er may be %alidly granted to any officer of the go%ernment, e1cept perhaps in cases of national emergency. t is to be noted that the permit to be issued is for the use of public places and not for the assembly itself. The $ourt holds that the assembly is la#ful and thus cannot be struck do#n. Fear of serious inCury cannot alone Custify suppression of free speech and assembly. t is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To Custify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious e%il #ill result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to belie%e that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to belie%e that the e%il to be pre%ented is a serious one . The fact that speech is likely to result in some %iolence or in destruction of property is not enough to Custify its suppression. There must be the probability of seriousinCury to the state. P,TTB4 S K!(4T,5