Difference between revisions of "Oliver Wendell Holmes"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{person |WP=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr. }} ==On freedom of speech== In Schenck v. United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes famously argued that ...")
 
m (Text replacement - "=Washington, D.C." to "=Washington DC")
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{person
 
{{person
|WP=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.
+
|wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.
 +
|spartacus=http://spartacus-educational.com/USAholmesOW.htm
 +
|spouses=Fanny Dixwell
 +
|alma_mater=Harvard University
 +
|birth_date=1841-03-08
 +
|birth_place=Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.
 +
|death_date=1935-03-06
 +
|death_place=Washington DC, U.S.
 +
|religion=Unitarian Universalism
 +
|political_parties=Republican
 +
|employment={{job
 +
|title=Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
 +
|start=December 4, 1902
 +
|end=January 12, 1932
 +
}}{{job
 +
|title=Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
 +
|start=August 2, 1899
 +
|end=December 4, 1902
 +
}}{{job
 +
|title=Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
 +
|start=December 15, 1882
 +
|end=August 2, 1899
 +
}}
 
}}
 
}}
 
==On freedom of speech==
 
==On freedom of speech==
 
In [[Schenck v. United States]], Oliver Wendell Holmes famously argued that [[freedom of speech]] should not protect a person "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding were punishable.  
 
In [[Schenck v. United States]], Oliver Wendell Holmes famously argued that [[freedom of speech]] should not protect a person "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding were punishable.  
  
This argument was used to support enforcement of the [[1917 Espionage Act]] during [[World War I]]. [[Charles Schenck]] and [[Elizabeth Baer]] were members of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia, of which Schenck was General Secretary. The executive committee authorized, and Schenck oversaw, printing and mailing more than 15,000 leaflets to men slated for conscription during World War I. The leaflets urged men not to submit to the draft, saying "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights",  
+
This argument was used to support enforcement of the [[1917 Espionage Act]] during [[World War I]]. [[Charles Schenck]] and [[Elizabeth Baer]] were members of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia, of which Schenck was General Secretary. The executive committee authorized, and Schenck oversaw, printing and mailing more than 15,000 leaflets to men slated for conscription during World War I. The leaflets urged men not to submit to the draft, saying "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights".
 +
 
 +
==Sacco and Vanzetti Case==
 +
In 1927, Oliver Wendell Holmes denied an appeal in the case of [[Nicola Sacco]] and [[Bartolomeo Vanzetti]].<ref>http://unwelcomeguests.net/109</ref>
  
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 +
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{Stub}}
 
{{Stub}}

Latest revision as of 09:36, 5 November 2016

Person.png Oliver Wendell Holmes   SpartacusRdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
Born1841-03-08
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.
Died1935-03-06 (Age 93)
Washington DC, U.S.
Alma materHarvard University
ReligionUnitarian Universalism
SpouseFanny Dixwell
Member ofAlpha Delta Phi, Phi Beta Kappa
PartyRepublican

On freedom of speech

In Schenck v. United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes famously argued that freedom of speech should not protect a person "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding were punishable.

This argument was used to support enforcement of the 1917 Espionage Act during World War I. Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were members of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia, of which Schenck was General Secretary. The executive committee authorized, and Schenck oversaw, printing and mailing more than 15,000 leaflets to men slated for conscription during World War I. The leaflets urged men not to submit to the draft, saying "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights".

Sacco and Vanzetti Case

In 1927, Oliver Wendell Holmes denied an appeal in the case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.[1]


Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.



References


57px-Notepad icon.png This is a page stub. Please add to it.