Excerpt from Schenck v. United States The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that, if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. violating the Espionage Act. The government claimed that he was working to obstruct recruitment. Schenck, however, took the matter to the Supreme Court arguing that his First Amendment rights were being violated.

A. Based on the excerpt from the court's decision in Schenk v. United States, explain how the court interpreted his argument.
B. Identify at least two other cases where the First Amendment was involved and explain how they were different.
C. Discuss the implications of cases referenced in parts A and B for contemporary free speech issues, such as the NFL football players refusing to stand during the national anthem at the start of football game.