I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. It was charged in each count of the indictment that it was a part of the conspiracy that the defendants would attempt to accomplish their unlawful purpose by printing, writing and distributing in the city of New York many copies of a leaflet or circular, printed in the English language, and of another printed in the Yiddish language, copies of which, properly identified, were attached to the indictment. After referring to 'his Majesty, Mr. Wilson, and the rest of the gang, dogs of all colors!' The defendants in Abrams v. United States intended to “provoke and encourage resistance” by distributing the leaflets, Justice Clarke argued. Ct. 249), and Debs ( Mr. Harry Weinberger, of New York City, for plaintiffs in error. U.S. 434, 442 With regard to that it seems too plain to be denied that the suggestion to workers in the ammunition factories that they are producing bullets to murder their dearest, and the further advocacy of a general strike, both in the second leaflet, do urge curtailment of production of things necessary to the prosecution of the war within the meaning of the Act of May 16, 1918, c. 75, 40 Stat.

The second leaflet is the only one that affords even a foundation for the charge, and there, without invoking the hatred of German militarism expressed in the former one, it is evident This is not an attempt to bring about a change of administration by candid discussion, for, no matter what may have incited the outbreak on the part of the defendant anarchists, the manifest purpose of such a publication was to create an attempt to defeat the war plans of the Government of the United States by bringing upon the country the paralysis of a general strike, thereby arresting the production of all munitions and other things essential to the conduct of the war.

Holmes asserted that those who think they are right will find it “perfectly logical” to translate their convictions into the law and impose them on others, but it is “the theory of our Constitution” that the best test of truth is a “free trade in ideas” through the competition of debate and discussion. Russian immigrants in the U.S. saw this use of force in their home country as an effort to undermine the new Soviet government, so they circulated literature calling for a general strike in ammunition plants that would undermine the U.S. war effort. The group had a meeting place in New York City, in rooms rented by defendant Abrams under an assumed name, and there the subject of printing the circulars was discussed about two weeks before the defendants were arrested. They would be absurd in any other. Of course I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that in their conviction upon this indictment the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States. St. 1918, § 10212c]). Decided November 10, 1919.

Timothy J. O'Neill is Emeritus Professor and Holder of the Tower-Hester Chair in Politics at Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas. to incite curtailment of production of things necessary to the prosecution of the war and to attempt to accomplish it by publishing the second leaflet to which I have referred. I had conceived that the United States through many years had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798 (Act July 14, 1798, c. 73, 1 Stat. ", "Yes! I admit that my illustration does not answer all that might be said, but it is enough to show what I think, and to let me pass to a more important aspect of the case. 316. , 39 Sup. To Holmes, because Abrams intended to help Russia, not Germany, the First Amendment’s free speech clause protected the leaflets.

It held that speech intended to excite riots and sedition during a time of war is not protected by the First Amendment.

The offenses were charged in the language of the act of Congress. An actual intent in the sense that I have explained is necessary to constitute an attempt, where a further act of the same individual is required to complete the substantive crime, for reasons given in Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 196 U. S. 396. making any exception to the sweeping command, 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.' The fourth count lays a conspiracy to incite curtailment of production of things necessary to the prosecution of the war and to attempt to accomplish it by publishing the second leaflet to which I have referred. When prosecuted under the Espionage Act, persons who sought to effectuate a plan of action which necessarily, before it could be realized, involved the defeat of the plans of the United States for the conduct of the war with Germany must be held to have intended that result notwithstanding their ultimate purpose may have been to prevent interference with the Russian Revolution. This purpose is emphasized in the next paragraph, which reads: "Do not let the Government scare you with their wild punishment in prisons, hanging and shooting. Awake, you workers of the world! Hudson, David L. Jr. "How 2 Supreme Court cases from 1919 shaped the next century of First Amendment law." This is not an attempt to bring about a change of administration by candid discussion, for no matter what may have incited the outbreak on the part of the defendant anarchists, the manifest purpose of such a publication was to create an attempt to defeat the war plans of the government of the United States, by bringing upon the country the paralysis of a general strike, thereby arresting the production of all munitions and other things essential to the conduct of the war. "Awake! This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. We have more reason for denouncing German militarism than has the coward of the White House. appeals in behalf of the Government of the United States, and to cease to render it assistance in the prosecution of the war. The fourth defendant testified that he was a 'Socialist' and believed in ' a proper kind of government, not capitalistic,' but in his classification the government of the United States was 'capitalistic.'. 470) Frohwerk (249 U. S. 204, 39 Sup. The First Amendment does not protect speech that is designed to undermine the United States in war by fueling sedition and disorder.

Syllabus. I also think that there is no hint at resistance to the United States as I construe the phrase. The Court held that in calling for a general strike and the curtailment of munitions production, the leaflets violated the Espionage Act. he knew facts from which common experience showed that the consequences would follow, whether he individually could foresee them or not. In evaluating the pamphlets the majority had failed to take into account to "success" of the "speech." 227