ABRAMS V UNITED STATES 250 U.S 616 1919 ABRAMS V UNITED STATES U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL WORLD WAR I U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS RULING THE SUPREME COURT ESTABLISHED THAT THE U.S GOVERNMENT HAD THE RIGHT TO LIMIT CERTAIN TYPES OF SPEECH DURING WARTIME THE COURT RULED THAT THE SEDITION ACT AN AMENDMENT TO THE ESPIONAGE ACT DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH WHEN IT MADE IT A CRIME TO WILLFULLY UTTER PRINT WRITE OR PUBLISH ANY DISLOYAL PROFANE SCURRILOUS OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE U.S GOVERNMENT BACKGROUND IN AUGUST 1918 RUSSIAN IMMIGRANT JACOB ABRAMS AND FOUR OTHER RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS WERE ARRESTED FOR DISTRIBUTING PAMPHLETS IN ENGLISH AND IN YIDDISH DENOUNCING PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON'S DECISION TO SEND TROOPS INTO RUSSIA THE RUSSIANS SIGNED THE DOCUMENTS THE REVOLUTIONISTS AND CLAIMED THAT WILSON'S EFFORTS WERE INTERFERING WITH THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION THE MEN WERE INDICTED UNDER THE SEDITION ACT FOR ENCOURAGING RESISTANCE TO THE WAR EFFORT AND WERE SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR BETWEEN 15 AND 20 YEARS DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED ON OCTOBER 21 1919 AND DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 10 1919 BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 2 JUSTICE JOHN CLARKE SPOKE FOR THE COURT WHICH UPHELD THE SEDITION ACT AND THE CONVICTIONS JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES SPOKE IN DISSENT THE COURT RULED THAT THE PAMPHLETS REPRESENTED A DANGER DURING A TIME OF SUPREME CRISIS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THEREFORE THE SEDITION ACT FORBIDDING THEM DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF SUCH A PUBLICATION WAS TO CREATE AN ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT THE WAR PLANS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY BRINGING UPON THE COUNTRY THE PARALYSIS OF A GENERAL STRIKE THEREBY ARRESTING THE PRODUCTION OF ALL MUNITIONS AND OTHER THINGS ESSENTIAL TO THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR THE PLAIN PURPOSE OF THEIR PROPAGANDA WAS TO EXCITE AT THE SUPREME CRISIS OF THE WAR DISAFFECTION SEDITION RIOTS AND AS THEY HOPED REVOLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMBARRASSING AND IF POSSIBLE DEFEATING THE MILITARY PLANS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN EUROPE
