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 both Schenck and New York Times cases, the principle that the government can limit speech that causes harm was relevant. The First - Amendment protects free speech, but there are limitations when speech poses a real threat of harm. The government does not have unlimited power to limit speech, and while it may have a burden to prove harm in some cases, the overarching commonality is the idea that speech causing harm can be restricted.

Answer:

The government can limit speech that causes harm.