The writer of the unanimous opinion in this case cited Aikens v. Wisconsin in stating that acts depend upon their circumstances. Thus, the action of the general secretary of the Socialist party was not protected in the same fashion as yelling fire in a crowded theater. The socialist leaflet that instigated this case blamed capitalist aims for the state of the nation. The defendant's conviction under the Espionage Act for encouraging resistance to the Conscription Act was upheld in this 1919 case, for which Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior wrote the opinion. FTP, identify this Supreme Court case, the result of which was decided by the presence of
The writer of the unanimous opinion in this case cited Aikens v. Wisconsin in stating that acts depend upon their circumstances. Thus, the action of the general secretary of the Socialist party was not protected in the same fashion as yelling fire in a crowded theater. The socialist leaflet that instigated this case blamed capitalist aims for the state of the nation. The defendant's conviction under the Espionage Act for encouraging resistance to the Conscription Act was upheld in this 1919 case, for which Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior wrote the opinion. FTP, identify this Supreme Court case, the result of which was decided by the presence of "clear and present danger."      ---|---          |
The writer of the unanimous opinion in this case cited Aikens v. Wisconsin in stating that acts depend upon their circumstances.
Charles T. {Schenck} v. United States