Free speech has always been an important issue and remains a hot-debated topic. The First Amendment ensures everyone’s equal right to free speech. However, there are debatable aspects, such as hate speech, dangerous speech, and so on. People’s opinions on what should be considered hate or dangerous speech and how they should be addressed differently. The question of perception is perhaps the cornerstone of the debate over the freedom of speech.
In my opinion, Justice Holmes’ position was justified because even freedom of speech has some limits, especially when it comes to extreme circumstances, such as war. While the concern of the socialists, who argued that the Conscription Act “violate[d] the most sacred right of personal liberty” (Davidson et al., 2022, p. 461), is understandable, there is also the opposite argument. Case in point, Justice Holmes said that free speech could be limited when it “create[s] a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils” (Britannica, 2022). I find the latter point to be more justified, and therefore I do not think the pamphlets were protected by the right to free speech.
Nevertheless, I believe that free speech limitations should be minimal. If a certain idea does not threaten society and does not discriminate against any person or group, people should be able to express it freely. In other words, the government should not have the right to silence such an idea. The same applies to the opposition to the government policy. As long as the opposing view does not present a threat to any particular person or group, it has the right to exist, and the government should not silence it.
References
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2022). Schenck v. United States. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web.
Davidson, J. W., DeLay, B., Heyrman, C.L., Lytle, M. and Stoff, M. (2022). U.S.: A narrative history, volume 2: Since 1865. (Vol. 2). McGraw-Hill Education.