Schenck v. United States (1919) The 1919 Schenck court case arose in opposition to United States involvement in World War I (1914-1918). Anti-war sentiment in the United States was particularly strong among socialists, German Americans, and religious groups who traditionally advocated anti-violence. In response to this prospect, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. This law provided heavy fines and prison sentences for those who interfered with U.S. military operations or for causing or attempting to cause insubordination or disloyalty in the military. Additionally, the law made it illegal to hinder the U.S. military's recruiting efforts. Among the many Americans convicted of violating the Espionage Act was Charles Schenck, general secretary of the Socialist Party of the United States. In 1917 Schenck sent copies of a letter urging resistance to the military draft to 15,000 men who had been drafted but not yet mustered into the U.S. Army. Schenck's letter stated that the draft violated the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, which abolished slavery and prohibited involuntary servitude. Schenck argued that forced conscription into the army was a form of involuntary servitude and therefore should be prohibited. The letters also alleged that the corporations had conspired to lead the United States into war, against the interests of average Americans. Schenck advised readers to assert their individual rights by opposing the draft law, but did not directly promote violence or circumvention of the draft laws. Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., issued a ruling that established guidelines for evaluating the limits of free speech. In Schenck's case, the Court had to decide whether the First Amendment protected his speech, even though he might have had the power to provoke opposition to the draft. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The Court concluded that because Schenck's speech was intended to create opposition to the draft, he was not protected by the First Amendment. Holmes considered the context of Schenck's speech as well as his intent. In his opinion he created a new legal criterion: the criterion of clear and present danger; designed to identify when certain forms of speech were not protected by the First Amendment.