From believing that the freedom of speech and press was protection against previous regulations to believing that it to be protection against unnecessary harm to the general public, Holmes changes positions between Patterson v. Colorado and Schenck v. United States.
In Patterson v. Colorado, Patterson was fined for publishing a cartoon about an active case of the Supreme Court of Colorado. Believing that his rights protected by the 14th Amendment were infringed, Patterson turned to the Supreme Court to repeal his punishment. Holmes argued that the cartoon was an obstruction of justice. He writes, “It [a publication] would tend to obstruct the administration of justice, because even a correct conclusion is not to be reached or helped in that
…show more content…
In his opinion, “…the main purpose of such constitutional provisions [1st Amendment] is ‘to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,’’ (Holmes). Patterson was allowed to publish his cartoon, which he would not have been allowed to without censorship before, but was not protected from what could come afterwards. In this case, Holmes did not take the value or context of the speech/publication fully into consideration. The cartoon specifically was highlighting how seats on the Supreme Court of Colorado were sold to corporate interests so corporations had influence on judicial decisions. Though about an immoral subject that the people should be aware of, the cartoon’s potential biasing effect on the decision was the biggest factor in the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision about the case.
Schenck was found guilty of printing and distributing pamphlets to men in order to convince them not to participate in the military draft according to the Espionage Act. Schenck believed that he was protected by the 1st Amendment, but ultimately, the Supreme Court disagreed. Holmes said that the pamphlets were an obvious violation to the Espionage Act and that the possible effects of them were severe enough to