Though the outcomes of Schenck and New York Times differed, what did these decisions have in common?

Both decisions recognized that freedom of speech is not absolute when speech causes harm. In Schenck, the Court allowed restrictions on speech that posed a danger during wartime; in New York Times v. United States, it generally rejected prior restraint but left room for limits in exceptional cases. Thus, both shared the idea that the government can limit speech that causes harm.

AI-written and checked against the verified answer.