Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Gale Encyclopedia of American Law Volume 1 P5 fully illuminates today's leading cases, major statutes, legal terms and concepts, notable persons involved with the law, important documents and more. Legal issues are fully discussed in easy-to-understand language, including such high-profile topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, capital punishment, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, physician-assisted suicide and thousands more. | 28 ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES Defendants in Abrams v. United States prior to their 1921 deportation to Russia. Clockwise from center Molly Steimer Samuel Lipman Hyman Lachowsky and Jacob Abrams. efforts necessary and essential to the prosecution of the war. Whereas the five defendants in Abrams were released on bail during March 1919 the Supreme Court issued two decisions upholding the convictions of several other antiwar protestors. in the first case the Court affirmed the convictions under the 1917 espionage Act. SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES 249 U.S. 47 39 S. Ct. 247 63 L.Ed. 470 1919 . In the other case the Court affirmed the convictions under the 1918 Sedition Act. Debs v. United States 249 U.S. 211 39 S. Ct. 252 63 L.Ed. 566 1919 Both decisions were unanimous and both decisions were written by Justice Holmes. In Schenck Holmes articulated what has become known as the clear-and-present danger doctrine a doctrine by which the constitutionality of laws regulating subversive expression are evaluated in light of the First Amendment s guarantee of free speech. The question in every case Holmes wrote in Schenck is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. In Schenck Holmes concluded that the government did not run afoul of the Free Speech Clause in suppressing the protestors antiwar expression because Holmes said that when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. Nor was Holmes s opinion in Schenck influenced by the possibility that the antiwar protests had no practical effect in changing the minds of passersby. If the act speaking or circulating a paper its tendency and the
