case was decided on November 10, 1919. Justice John H. Clarke delivered the opinion of the Court, he concluded that the purpose of the pamphlets “was to excite, at the supreme crisis of the war, disaffection, sedition, riots, and… [defeat] the military plans of the Government.” Just like Schenck they were given the maximum of twenty years in a federal penitentiary. While Justice Holmes still stood by his Schenck opinion, he didn’t agree with the decision of the Court in this case. He said, “only the present danger of immediate evil or intent to bring it” gives Congress the power to set a limit on opinion. “Congress certainly cannot forbid all efforts to change the mind of the country. Now nobody can suppose that the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by an unknown man, without more, would present any immediate danger. The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas… the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market…. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment. While that experiment is part of our system I think we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe… unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.” So now because of this case the “clear and present danger” speech had to become “imminent danger” speech to be punished.In the case of Schenck vs. United States the decision contracted civil rights, by creating the “clear and present danger” rule. But in Abrams vs. United States the civil rights have been expanded, because now just simply a clear dangerous speech wouldn’t be punished, it would have to be an “imminent danger” s...
