Abrams v US

1. Abrams et al vs. United States
[250 U.S. 616] November 10, 1919
Presented by: NEBRIJA, LESTER R.
Philosophy of Law
Nov 27, 2022

2. Mollie Steimer, Jacob Abrams, Hyman Lachowsky, and Samuel Lipman
were Russian immigrants who were convicted by the U.S. government
under the "Espionage Act.“
Source: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/clear&pdanger.htm

3. Issues:
Whether the acts charged against the defendants were not unlawful
because they're within the protection of freedom of speech and of the
press which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States.

4. Rules, laws, cases, principles cited
The defendants were charged under
the Sedition Act of 1918, which
imposed harsh penalties for a wide
range of dissenting speech, including
speech insulting or abusing the U.S.
government, the flag, the Constitution,
or the military. The defendants were
sentenced to twenty years in prison.
The Supreme Court upheld these
convictions—applying the “clear and
present danger” test from Schenck v.
United States, decided earlier that
same year.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes—the
author of the Schenck decision—
dissented, joined by Justice Louis
Brandeis. In his famous Abrams
dissent, Justice Holmes articulated his
theory of the marketplace of ideas—
arguing that robust free speech is
important because it aids society in the
discovery of truth.

5. Analysis of facts
In 1918, the United States participated in a military operation on
Russian soil against Germany after the Russian Revolution overthrew
the tsarist regime. Russian immigrants in the US circulated literature
calling for a general strike in ammunition plants to undermine the US
war effort. The defendants were convicted for two leaflets thrown
from a New York City window. One denounced the sending of
American troops to Russia, and the second denounced the war and
advocated for the cessation of the production of weapons to be used
against "Workers Soviets of Russia." They were sentenced to 20 years
in prison.

6. Arguments:
Petitioners: That there is no
substantial evidence to support
the judgment upon the verdict of
guilty, and that the motion of the
defendants for an instructed
verdict in their favor was
erroneously denied.
Respondent: That the interpretation we have put
upon these articles is not only the fair
interpretation of them, but that it is the meaning
which their authors consciously intended should
be conveyed by them to others
One of the articles concludes with this definite
threat of armed rebellion:
"If they will use arms against the Russian people
to enforce their standard of order, so will we use
arms, and they shall never see the ruin of the
Russian Revolution.“
In Schenk v. U.S., Holmes devised a legal test for
governmental restrictions on free speech. The
deciding factor, he wrote, is whether the speech in
question is "of such a nature as to create a clear
and present danger that [it] will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to
prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

7. Conclusion:
The Court held that in calling for a general strike and the curtailment of
munitions production, the leaflets violated the Espionage Act. Congress’
determination that all such propaganda posed a danger to the war effort was
sufficient to meet the standard set in Schenck v. United States for prosecuting
attempted crimes. As in Schenck, the Court emphasized that protections on
speech are lower during wartime.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that the First
Amendment protects the right to dissent from the government’s viewpoints and
objectives. Protections on speech, he continued, should not be curtailed unless
there is a present danger of immediate evil, or the defendant intends to create
such a danger. The evidence in this case consisted of two leaflets, which he
concluded did not meet the “clear and present danger” test.