5
Clear and Present Danger and the Market for Ideas 13:31 Lena: So, we have this dark era where the Supreme Court is basically a rubber stamp for government suppression. But in the fall of 1919, something shifts. Two justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Louis Brandeis, start to break away from the pack. They begin to develop a new way of looking at the First Amendment that would eventually change everything.
13:54 Miles: This is where we get the famous "clear and present danger" test, though it took a while to get there. In his dissent in the Abrams case, Holmes wrote something that still gives me chills. He said we should be "eternally vigilant" against attempts to check the expression of opinions we loathe, unless they "so imminently threaten immediate interference" with the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
14:19 Lena: And his reasoning wasn't just about being "nice" to dissenters. He argued that the "ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas." It is the classic "marketplace of ideas" concept. The best test of truth is whether a thought can get itself accepted in the competition of the market, not whether the government likes it.
14:39 Miles: Brandeis took it even further a few years later. In Whitney v. California, he argued that even if someone is expressly advocating for breaking the law, that isn't enough to justify silence. He said that "if there be time to avert the evil" through debate and discussion, then the remedy is "more speech, not enforced silence." Only an "emergency" can justify repression.
15:03 Lena: "More speech, not enforced silence." That is such a powerful philosophy. It places the burden on the government to prove that the speech is so dangerous that there isn't even time to talk about it. But we have to remember—at the time, this was the minority view! Holmes and Brandeis were the outcasts. The law of the land was still that the government could punish you for speech with a "bad tendency."
15:29 Miles: It stayed that way for a long time. Even into the 1940s, the Court was still struggling. They started to move toward the Holmes-Brandeis approach in some cases, like Cantwell v. Connecticut, where they said you couldn't punish someone for offensive speech unless it created a "clear and present danger." But they hadn't fully committed yet.
15:47 Lena: And then comes the Cold War. As soon as the alliance with the Soviet Union fell apart, the old fears came rushing back. We went from fighting Nazis to fighting the "Red Menace," and the government once again decided that "dangerous" speech was a national security threat. We saw loyalty programs, investigations of "subversives," and attempts to outlaw the Communist Party entirely.
16:11 Miles: President Truman's Secretary of Labor was literally asking why communists should be allowed to elect people to public office. Attorney General Tom Clark was ordering arrests for speeches that were "derogatory to our way of life." The cycle was repeating itself. And this led to one of the most important—and controversial—First Amendment cases in history: Dennis v. United States.
16:32 Lena: Right, the Smith Act prosecutions. The Smith Act made it illegal to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government. In 1951, the Court had to decide if the leaders of the U.S. Communist Party could be convicted just for teaching communist theory. And this is where the "clear and present danger" test gets... well, a bit diluted.
16:52 Miles: Chief Justice Vinson, writing for the plurality, basically said that the Holmes-Brandeis approach was now the standard, but then he re-defined what "clear and present danger" meant. He argued that if the evil you are trying to prevent is grave enough—like the violent overthrow of the government—then the danger doesn't actually have to be "clear" or "present."
17:12 Lena: He basically used a math formula: "Gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability." So, if the "evil" is a 10 out of 10, it doesn't matter if the "probability" is only a 1 out of 10. You can still suppress the speech. It was a huge step back from what Brandeis had argued. Justice Hugo Black wrote a stinging dissent, saying he hoped that in "calmer times," the Court would restore the First Amendment to its proper place.
17:36 Miles: It just goes to show that even when the Court adopts a protective-sounding phrase like "clear and present danger," it can still be twisted if the judges are feeling the pressure of public hysteria. It took another decade and a half for the Court to finally find its backbone and set a rule that was actually hard to break.