Question

though the outcomes of schenck and new york times differed, what did these decisions have in common?
the government has a heavy burden to prove harm.
the government can limit speech that causes harm.
the government has unlimited power to limit speech.
the government must follow the first amendment.

Explanation:

In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court held that speech could be restricted if it posed a "clear and present danger," like Schenck's anti - draft leaflets during WWI. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Court protected the New York Times' right to publish the Pentagon Papers, but the underlying principle is that the government can limit speech that causes harm (e.g., in Schenck the harm was to the war effort; the New York Times case was more about prior restraint, but the general idea of harm - based limitation is a common thread in free speech jurisprudence). The government does not have unlimited power to limit speech (so that option is wrong). While the government has some burden in some cases (like in later "strict scrutiny" cases), in Schenck it was easier for the government to show harm (so the "heavy burden" option is incorrect). And while the government must follow the First Amendment in general, the more specific commonality is the harm - based limitation principle.

Answer:

The government can limit speech that causes harm.