3 ms·

>Schenck was a bad ruling, it's been overturned, and Holmes's argument appeared in a dissent. I'm not sure I follow. Holmes authored opinions for unanimous dec

• dredmorbius 5y ago
  You're right, my error. I've updated my comment to note that, though I've left my error standing. I was thinking of the subsequent Abrams case (only a few months later in 1919) where Holmes departed from the Majority. That disagreement became the Great Dissent (and recent-ish book of the same title). If I can somewhat cover for myself: Holmes in Schenck, and yes, writing for the majority, offered the "fire in a crowded theatre" hypothetical as not deserving protection. Again: partiall overturned later in Brandenburg (1969). My point remains that I'm not actually using Holme's hypo but one derived from it, and again, with a direct-gain motive added to that.