Insinuation of Implications

   I can't remember the last time I've heard a more tricky case. Schenck v. United States and Baer v. United States struck a nerve with me, for no other reason than it seeming to be a matter of assuming the outcome of intentions. While these may be probable, how is one to know? 

   The fact of the matter is that, within the document provided to us, there appears to be confusion, contradiction, and doubt. Two quotes appear within this document to cast doubt, and neither are ever rectified or justified:

"It is argued that the evidence, if admissible, was not sufficient to prove that they defendant Schenck was concerned in sending this document." 

"It is objected that the documentary evidence was not admissible because obtained upon a search warrant, valid as so appears. The contrary is established. [...] The search warrant did not issue against the defendant but against the Socialist headquarters."

   Despite my criticisms of this investigation and the way it was conducted, as well as the way this document presents its content (at one point it simply says "Without going into confirmatory details..." which I am critical of because it omits what is most likely valuable information), I do believe I, in the end, would side with the decision of the defendants being found guilty on all accounts. 

Why?

   I am concerned mostly with context. I am studying to be an English teacher and, though I must teach

it, I am not that concerned with grammar in every day situations. I will not be grading my students on their grammar during informal speech or on a written assignment like an exit pass... because I don't believe it matters. They are still able to convey meaning and get their point across and be understood by their peers and by me. When will I be critical of their grammar? When it is something I actually have to test for to make sure they understand it (i.e., during a speech, in an essay, within a presentation, etc.), because, despite my casual approach to it, grammar does matter. However, context and discourse matters more, in my opinion. 

   During any other time period, it may have been more acceptable for the defendants in this case to exercise their rights and spread word about their political beliefs, even recruiting people to join them. However, amidst a war, it was inappropriate. Even though this may have been a vital time for the defendants to take action and attempt solicitation, it was an unlawful flex of free speech that could prove damageable to a large population of people and to the country. 

   However, as a writer, I must also point out that I am critical of this country for the way it conducts business surrounding political views that are different from its own, particularly when it comes to socialism and communism. Even though there is reason to believe that the actions carried out by the defendant are harmful, the Supreme Court made assumptions about the implications of the actions of the defendants, claiming, "Without going into confirmatory details that were proved, no reasonable man could doubt that the defendant Schenck was largely instrumental in sending the circulars about." My issue with this quote is that it is highly opinionated, because how might one define a "reasonable man" and how could one understand the case if "confirmatory details" were omitted, but we are expected to believe that they "were proved" anyway?

   While I understand that the application of the rights of free speech is not always black and white, I assert that I do side with the end result of this case, though I do not necessarily agree with the reasons for its resolution.