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, allowing the government to limit speech that posed an immediate threat. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Court protected the right to publish classified information, but still recognized that speech could be restricted if it caused harm (e.g., endangering national security). Both cases thus acknowledge that the government can limit speech that causes harm. The first option ("The government has a heavy burden to prove harm") is more relevant to later cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The third option ("unlimited power") is incorrect as both cases involve some limits. The fourth option ("must follow the First Amendment") is too vague; the key commonality is the harm - based limit on speech.

Answer:

The government can limit speech that causes harm.