An old existing explanation called “bad tendency” was the only precedent for prosecuting cases, which compromised the given freedoms of speech and press. This idea of “bad tendency” came from English common law that even justified American ideas like the Sedition Act if 1798. No definite injury needs to be shown to prove this theory. The actual “bad tendency” terms are as follows:

“If words have a tendency to undermine the authority of government to corrupt the morals of some members of society, the writer or speaker can be punished.” (Holsinger & Dilts – 49).

Under this precedent there was almost always a conviction since only a propensity towards harm can prov

e guilt. Through several World War I sedition cases, the “bad tendency” test was used in trials for Socialists, and draft dodgers. This precedent would not be changed until 1919 with another Socialist case which involved a man named Charles Schenck. At this point in defense, counsel finally decided to argue that “bad tendency” meddled with the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

This opinion shows a detailed progression of the “bad tendency” common law practice into the “Clear and Present Danger” idea, which still holds true today. It is quite amazing that we haven’t seen more cases like this recently with the Al Qaeda involvement in the United States and the threat to national security. I would imagine that proving clear and present danger would be very hard to prove before the fact. And of course, after a bombing or suspected terrorist gets away, there is no case left no matter how much evidence or proof towards clear and present danger. It will be interesting to see how the law changes again to accommodate the changing atmosphere in the United States. I think that it will become more restrictive until this national security threat has lessened.

Since the “Clear and Present Danger” idea was brought about during a time of war, with our impending conflict with Iraq the question arises, will this be used again? It has happened before where certain groups will protest wars, but will it ever cross the line and resort to posing

Some topics in this essay:
Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, Al Qaeda, Sedition Act, Charles Schenck, Wendell Holms, World War, Holsinger Dilts, “clear danger”, “bad tendency”, Espionage Act, danger” idea, “clear danger” idea, supreme court, , called “bad tendency”, warrants act, explanation called, called “bad, free speech, act crime”, ground saying success, saying success warrants, perceive ground saying, danger law,