The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1919-11-20
FREE SPEECH.
And Interpretation of What 1t Means
by Justice Holmes.

Every year we should be eternslly
yigilant against attempts to check the
expression of opinion that we loathe
and believe to be fraught with death,
undess they so imminently threaten
immediate interference with the law
full and pressing purposes of the law
that an immediate check is required to
save the country. Only the emer-
gency that makes it Immediately dan
gerous to leave the correction Of evil
counsels to time warrants making any
exception to the sweeping command:
Congress shall make no law abridging
the freedom of speech.
These words of Justice Holmes are
ringing through the land. They were
spoken in his dissenting opinion. con
Cured in by Justice Brandeis both
from Massachusetts, in the case of
Abram Lipman and Mollie Steiner re-
Gently decided by the United States
supreme court The defendants, Rus
sian in origin, had been convicted dur
ing the war of distributing pamphlets
upholding the bolshevist government in
Russia and advocating the soviet form
Of government.
In reviewing the case, on appeal, the
majority of the United States supreme
court sustained the verdict of guilty
against the defendants on the question
OF fact involved. Interpreting the pam
phlets distributed, the supreme court
held, in the words of Justice Clarke,
that "this is not an attempt to bring
about change Of administration by
candid discussion. II is clearly
an appeal to the workers TO arise and
put down the government of the Unit
ed States Although Justice Holmes
and Brandeis dissented from this con
elusion and, even on the question Of
fact would have set aside the verdict
Of the jury in the lower court, the
weight Of opinion OF course sustains the
majority view and must command the
approval Of the public, which has not
the opportunity to examine the offend
ing pamphlets and estimate the effect
of their teaching. There can be no dis
agreement among good citizens in this
country that the speaker or writer
who actually appeals TO the people 10
overthrow the government of the Unit
ed States, not BY constitutional means,
but by resort to violence, goes beyond
the reasonable limits of our c0nstitu-
tional guaranty of free speech and may
be sternly dealt with by the govern
mcnt attacked
The valuable and significant aspect
Of the dissenting opinion Of Justice
Holmes, however, consists in its sharp
protest against the growing tendency
to cruelty people because their opinions
are obnoxious, or loathsome, or, as he
says, .fraught with death" He strong
III upholds and he rightly upholds-
the principle Of law under which an
opinion Is legally sacred even If it is
hateful. even if il is destructive in its
ultimate implications Not until that
opinion so imminently" threatens law
and order that an immediate check il
required TO save the country" would
Justice Holmes permit the authorities
to limit freedom OF speech by arbitrary
means. In upholding free speech 10
this extent the distinguished and
learned Judge would simply adhere to
Nlt Nttl-fNld biiNllNi -AAitFi lNAA lluNl lAN
Of leaving to opinions an open arena
in which their battle for the direction
of public sentiment could be fought to
finish, with the assurance that in a
free field of discussion the mass Of the
people could be won to the support Of
the opinions that deserved to triumph
and survive.
II is the task Of liberalism in Ameri.
ca TO defend free speech in its rights
under the constitution, and to prevent
the continuation of war time eneroach-
ments upon il into the period Of peace.
If this insistence upon the maintenance
Of American liberties fails to win the
support of Congress in the near flu
ture, we shall encourage class war in
its most sinister form and make easy
the introduction of the white terror
of the reds" Justice Holmes has per-
formed one Of the greatest services in
his life by his courageous restatement
Of fundamental American principle