does anyone no of the Oliver Wendell Holmes and the Abrams case in freedom of speech and could you tell me why the american people tend to support the restriction of these rights in practice.
2007-03-22 20:35:55 · 3 answers · asked by flo123 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Because in practice, it's usually a specific (temporary) majority that's making the decisions.
And those majorities rarely care about the minorities they would oppress. The majorities only care about getting what they want. So, as long as their particular viewpoint is not being restricted, why should they care if other people are being silenced?
It's easy to support free speech when you agree with what is being said. It's when you hate the speaker and everything they stand for that defending their free speech is noble.
2007-03-22 20:41:33 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court involving the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a criminal offense to criticize the U.S. federal government. The Court ruled 7-2 that the Act did not violate civil rights under the First Amendment, with Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis dissenting. The case was overturned during the Vietnam War era in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
2007-03-23 11:44:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Really I do not know, sorry.
2007-03-23 03:45:03 · answer #3 · answered by manjunath_empeetech 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋