In the case of schenck v. united states the supreme court ruled that
the espionage act was unconstitutional.
charles schenck had been falsely accused.
speech aimed to potentially create danger could be banned.
the first amendment had no limits.

Speech aimed to potentially create danger could be banned

Explanation:

The Espionage Act was did not violate the first amendment. However, the first amendment could be restricted if speech represented to society a " clear and present danger"

Speech aimed to potentially create danger could be banned.

Explanation:

The conflict of the case originated during World War I when Charles Schenck (general secretary of the U.S. Socialist Party) distributed leaflets opposing the implementation of a military draft and urging people to disobey the draft, through peaceful action.

Soon, Schenck was charged with attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to disrupt the recruitment process, and therefore, with violating the Espionage Act of 1917 which was legislation that made it a crime to publicly protest against the war or the military draft and to assist the war efforts of the nation’s enemies.

Once in the Supreme Court, Schenck alleged that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed in the 1rst Amendment.

Nevertheless, the Court ruled that the 1rst Amendment didn't protect freedom of speech during war times, especially if the speech represented a clear and present danger toward the war efforts. Therefore, it established that speeches aiming to potentially create danger could be banned.

b.

one company controls all the means of production of a product.

~coco