r the
Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of
the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of
the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely,
or disrepute, or shall wilfully utter, print, write or publish any
language intended to incite, provoke or encourage resistance to the
United States or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall wilfully
display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall wilfully, by utterance,
writing, printing, publication or language spoken, urge, incite or
advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or
things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution
of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by
such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the
prosecution of the war, and whoever shall wilfully advocate, teach,
defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this
section enumerated, and whoever shall, by word or act, support or favor
the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by
word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more
than twenty years, or both." ...

There you have both pieces of legislation. On the one hand, the
Constitution provides immunity, and on the other hand, the Espionage Act
provides a penalty for the expression of opinion.

The Supreme Court on the 10th of March handed down its decision. The
decision was read by Justice Holmes and concurred in by the entire
court.

7. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION

The substance of the decision is contained in the following sentences:

"The main theme of the speech was Socialism, its growth and a prophecy
of its ultimate success. With that we have nothing to do, but if a part
or the manifest intent of the more general utterances was to encourage
those present to obstruct recruiting service, and if in passages such
encouragement was directly given, the immunity of the general theme may
not be enough to protect the speech."

Justice Holmes concludes, after a review of the case, that the immunity,
under the First Amendment, did not protect the speech. In that argument,
he referred to a decision which had been handed down on the 3rd of March
known as the Schenck Case--another Espionage Act case--in which this
point concerning the immunity under the First A