Bad_Tendency_Or_Clear_And_Present_Danger

Bad Tendency Or Clear And Present Danger The progression of Supreme Court cases starting 1919 began a debate about the extent of the First Amendment’s protection of sedition and also how it would be defined. The first explanation was called “bad tendency,” and it was way too vague and subjective to be relied on. Next, through Schenck v. U.S. the famous “fire in a movie theater” example was given to describe the “Clear and Present Danger” idea. Through each case the precedent was becoming more and more refined to create a more detailed law in prosecuting sedition. An old existing explanation called “bad tendency” was the only precedent for prosecuting cases, which compromised the given freedoms of speech and press. This idea of “bad tendency” came from English common law that even justified American ideas like the Sedition Act if 1798. No definite injury needs to be shown to prove this theory. The actual “bad tendency” terms are as follows: “If words have a tendency to undermine the authority of government to corrupt the morals of some members of society, the writer or speaker can be punished.” (Holsinger & Dilts – 49). Under this precedent there was almost danger, present, clear, tendency, speech, idea, bad, precedent, case, law, cases, act, way, sedition, schenck, fire, court, words, war, through, theater, supreme, since, right, question, prove, movie, ideas, first, even, draft, another, again, about