Eight months after the schenck decision, the court again applied the clear and present danger principle. holmes dissented in that case, stating that unlike the schenck case, actions of the convicted man in teh second case had little or no effect on teh nation's war effort. what do you think this reveals about holmes attitude toward free speeck 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.

i dont no the claim so it's hard to answer but i think he would go to the people to decide. : ) ; )