Question

read the quotation. \words... may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger.\ —justice oliver wendell holmes, schenck v. united states, march 1919 according to this ruling, ○ people had the right to say whatever they wished. ○ people were not allowed to discuss frightening or controversial topics. ○ the right to free speech had limits that could be enforced by the government. ○ the right to free speech was overturned.

Explanation:

The quote by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States indicates that words (speech) can be prohibited when they create a "clear and present danger." This implies that free - speech is not absolute.

• Option 1: The quote clearly shows that there are limitations on speech, so people do not have the right to say whatever they wished.
• Option 2: The ruling is not about not discussing "frightening or controversial topics" in general. It is about speech that creates a "clear and present danger."
• Option 3: Since speech can be prohibited under certain circumstances (when it creates a clear and present danger), it means the government can enforce limits on the right to free speech.
• Option 4: The right to free speech was not overturned. The quote just shows that it has limits.

Answer:

the right to free speech had limits that could be enforced by the government.