Free Speech, World War One, and the Problem of Dissent
Michael O’Malley, Associate Professor of History and Art History, George Mason University
Assignment
This act quickly came under fire as unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court supported it, arguing the government had the right to repress free speech in time of "national emergency." Three of the court's rulings are excerpted here. Read these excerpts and consider whether or not the government should have the right to limit free speech.
Schenck v. United
States
Schenck, a socialist, was convicted of violating the
Espionage Act by distributing
anti-war literature. Oliver Wendell Holmes gave a famous
justification for limiting speech in time of danger.
Abrams v. United
States
Similarly, Abrams and a group of radical activists were
convicted of conspiracy under the Espionage
Act--again for distributing pamphlets criticizing the
war effort. In this case, Holmes dissented from the
majority, arguing that unpopular ideas should be
protected.
Gitlow v. People
This excerpt from Holmes's famous dissent appears to argue
for broader protection of free speech. Many historians have
seen a contradiction in Holmes' positions, or argued that he
had recognized the danger in his earlier position