The spread of truth in matters of general concern is essential to the stability of a republic.

How can truth survive if force is to be used, possibly on the wrong side? Absolutely unlimited

discussion is the only means by which to make sure that truth is mighty and will prevail.

If all opponents of a war are suppressed and all advocates of a war are given free reign,

is it not conceivable that a peace-loving president might be prevented from making an early

honorable peace founded on justice?

How can the citizens find out whether a war is just or unjust unless there is free and full

discussion? If it is criminal to say the draft law is wrong, then it is criminal to say that

any law is wrong. For the Constitution, are told is not suspended in time of war,

but we dare not attack it or our form of government.

It is conceivable under such a rule

that a citizen might be a criminal who advocated

the election of senators by popular vote,

the adoption of the referendum, or whatnot.

But probably such would only be the case in time of war when he might thereby give aid and

comfort to the enemy. Must we return to conditions which prevailed under George III and be

punished for criticizing our government? Are we Americans big enough to allow

honest criticism of the majority by the minority? In days gone by, it was held criminal to talk

against flogging in the army. Nowadays, it is generally considered criminal to talk against

Wall Street.

Revolutions are not caused by freedom of expression.

Brief of Plaintiffs and Error Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Bayer

...