Abrams v. U.S.
This immigrant was charged under the Sedition Act for distributing anti-war leaflets during WWI.
Jacob Abrams
Schenck was a leader in this political party
the Socialist Party
The Women’s March occurred in this year.
2017
The Supreme Court ruled against Abrams, saying his speech posed this kind of threat.
a danger to national security
Schenck was charged for distributing leaflets that opposed this government policy.
the military draft
The Women’s March primarily advocated for this type of right
women’s rights
This justice famously dissented in the Abrams case, changing his stance on free speech.
Justice Holmes
The Court created this legal standard for determining when speech could be restricted.
clear and present danger test
Rosenberg argues that protests are essential because they do this in democratic societies.
challenge power and promote social change
In his dissent, Holmes introduced this metaphor to explain how ideas should be tested.
marketplace of ideas
The law used to convict Schenck was passed during WWI and was known as this.
the Espionage Act of 1917
Rosenberg draws connections between the Women’s March and these two Supreme Court cases.
Schenck v. U.S. and Abrams v. U.S
Holmes argued that speech should only be restricted if it incites this.
What is an imminent unlawful action
This famous analogy was used by Justice Holmes to justify limiting speech.
shouting fire in a crowded theater
One criticism of protest movements, as noted in the chapter, is that they can sometimes do this instead of uniting people
create division or polarization