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. true or false.

False.

Explanation:

The Schenck v. United States trial was a case-law on the possibility of restricting fundamental freedoms in time of war, 1919. The Supreme Court’s attitude to the First Amendment was best expressed by Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Schenk v. United States. Schenk was charged with attempting to provoke disobedience to orders in the U.S. military and blocking staffing for distributing leaflets calling for the abolition of conscription into the armed forces and denouncing the war as a crime on the part of Wall Street. Both of these charges fell under the provisions of the 1917 Espionage Act. In peacetime, according to Judge Holmes, such speeches are protected by the First Amendment, but when the country is at war, statements like those made by Schenk pose a “clear and real threat” of causing “harm that Congress has the right to prevent.”  

this statement is true.

forests are public goods, available for everybody. when usage of such a good becomes interesting for consumers and its usage increases, there can be a risk of overexploitation. it is a non rival good therefore, if one person consumes the good it does not reduce the availability for subsequent consumers.

these caracteristics require the establishment of measures in order to prevent the destruction of a commonly owned space, for example, to restrict the amount of people that have access to the same time.