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 established the "clear and present danger" test. It allowed the government to limit speech (like Schenck's anti - draft leaflets) that posed a clear and present danger. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Court protected the New York Times' right to publish the Pentagon Papers. But in both cases, the principle that the government can limit speech that causes harm (in Schenck it was harm to the war effort, and the underlying idea in New York Times was that prior restraint—government pre - publication censorship—was a way to prevent harm, but the Court found the harm claim by the government unsubstantiated) is relevant. The First Amendment is the overarching framework. However, the key commonality in terms of government - speech interaction (beyond just following the First Amendment which is a broader principle) is that the government can limit speech that causes harm. The "heavy burden to prove harm" was more in New York Times (government had to prove harm from publishing Pentagon Papers, which it couldn't), not really in Schenck (where the Court was more lenient to the government's harm claim). The government does not have unlimited power to limit speech (as shown by New York Times). And while the government must follow the First Amendment, the more specific commonality related to the nature of speech - limitation power is that the government can limit speech that causes harm.

Answer:

The government can limit speech that causes harm.