In this excerpt, justice oliver wendell holmes explains his ruling in schenck v. united states. what argument is holmes making about personal rights and free speech? the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent. –schenck v. united states

In the excerpt, Justice Holmes is arguing, as he himself said " that whether the personal right of free speech can be infringed is a question of proximity and degree". In other words, free speech can be restricted if the speech is calling for the commitment of a crime.

In the case that brought the Court's decision, two members of the Socialist Party of the United States were convicted because they were distribuing flyers that opposed military drafting for World War I. Opposing the draft, or promoting opposition to it, was illegal under the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Supreme Court considered that those prohibitions were constitutional because the nation was at war.

To sum up, what Justice Holmes is saying is that expressing opposition to a war is a form of free speech, but promoting draft-dodging is not.

answer; i believe the above is (false)

first of all, it's important to say that the book we shall not be moved, written by joan dash, is about the first strike of women in the united states in the year 1909. the best historical detail to clarify the reader's undertanding is the phrase "general strike". this strike involved women working at a garment factory who decided to protest   long working hours, low wages and brutal conditions. this strike became known as "the new york shirtwaist strike" or "the uprising of the 20,000". the strike mostly involved jewish women who did not speak english or who had a basic knowledge of the english language. finally, the strike went on from november 1909 until february 1910.