Abrams v. USA (1919)
In a case remarkably similar to Schenck v. USA, Abrams v. USA involved a group of Russian immigrants who advocated strikes in factories producing war materials due to the Unites States' decision to send troops to Russia following World War I. Much like Schenck v. USA, the immigrants were convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Supreme Court upheld their convictions for the same reason. What makes this case significant is the change of heart observed in Chief Justice Holmes, who in this case wrote the dissenting opinion, substituting the word "imminent" in for "present" in "clear and present danger," and adding "forthwith" to the phrase, restricting the restriction of free speech only to those acts that could clearly be directly linked to the occurence of violence, treason, etc.
In a case remarkably similar to Schenck v. USA, Abrams v. USA involved a group of Russian immigrants who advocated strikes in factories producing war materials due to the Unites States' decision to send troops to Russia following World War I. Much like Schenck v. USA, the immigrants were convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Supreme Court upheld their convictions for the same reason. What makes this case significant is the change of heart observed in Chief Justice Holmes, who in this case wrote the dissenting opinion, substituting the word "imminent" in for "present" in "clear and present danger," and adding "forthwith" to the phrase, restricting the restriction of free speech only to those acts that could clearly be directly linked to the occurence of violence, treason, etc.