AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Espionage and sedition acts significance8/17/2023 ![]() ![]() Just as Justice Holmes established his liberal “clear and present danger” theory, Chafee and other scholars claimed that the actual limits of free speech lay within the original meaning of the First Amendment. Chafee’s article and Holmes’ dissenting opinion incorporate the prewar scholar thought of the First Amendment and its implications. Both developed ideas that derived from the prewar definition of the First Amendment from other scholars such as Cooley, Freund, Schofield and Federal Judge Learned Hand. An overview of Chafee’s article and one of Holmes’ dissent shows the relationship of similar ideas such as arguing that free speech is necessary because the truth would eventually arise from opposing opinions. ![]() Scholars such as Rabban, Pollenberg, and Lewis have consistently stood by Zechariah Chafee’s article as the main catalyst to Holmes’ dissent. Many scholars have drawn conclusions as what made Holmes separate himself from the majority and reconsider his “clear and present danger” theory, especially during wartime. Many defendants were prosecuted for their opposing opinions and convicted under Justice Holmes’ formulated “clear and present danger theory.” Eight months after Schenck v United States was called, Justice Holmes delivered a dissenting opinion in Abrams v United States, a risky but monumental move that put the definition of the First Amendment in a grey area. The enactment of the Espionage Act during World War I hoped to protect the United States from opposing views and any violent resistance that may arise. The issue of free speech had taken the back seat in the court system for more than a century. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |