Eight months after the schenck decision, the court again applied the clear and present danger principle. Holmes dissented in that case, staring that unlike the schenck case, actions of the convicted man in the second case had little or no effect on the nations war effort. What do you think this reveals about Holmes attitude towards free speech guarantees ?

Holmes’s subsequent dissent reveals that he greatly respected the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and that he was willing to limit those guarantees only in times of crisis when a real and definite danger threatened the nation and the clear and present danger principle could be applied.

Read more on -

Explanation:

postive making stock not fall

negative   scams and   currpurt buisnesss practices