Question

1. abrams v us

jacob abrams, in 1919, decided that he did not support the us involvement in wwi, especially in regards to a communist revolution that was occurring in russia. he and some friends decided to create some papers in the russian and yiddish languages that urged americans to protest against the us sending troops to russia. the papers also encouraged employees in the weapon and ammunition industries to stop working and strike, thus stopping the flow of weapons to american soldiers to use against russia or germany. they then threw these pamphlets out of upper story windows of factories that produced such weapons and goods so that they littered the ground around the factory for the employees to see. they signed the pamphlets as
evolutionists.\
do you believe they are guilty or not guilty? why? if guilty, what should their punishment be?

Explanation:

In the context of 1919, the US was involved in WWI and there were concerns about national security and the war effort. The Espionage Act of 1917 was in effect, which made it a crime to interfere with military operations or to promote insubordination in the military. Abrams and his friends' actions of urging strikes in weapon - related industries and protesting against sending troops (during a war) could be seen as potentially interfering with the war effort. However, the First Amendment protects free speech. But the "clear and present danger" test (from Schenck v US, 1919) was relevant. If their actions posed a clear and present danger to the war effort (e.g., if the strikes actually happened and weapons were not supplied), they could be guilty.

Answer:

Guilty. Their actions, during a time of war, could be seen as attempting to interfere with the war effort (urging strikes in weapon - related industries). However, the punishment should be proportionate. Given the historical context (the Espionage Act and the "clear and present danger" test), a prison sentence (but not overly harsh, considering the nature of the speech - related offense) and fines could be appropriate. But this is a complex legal - historical analysis and different legal scholars might have different views based on interpretations of free speech and wartime restrictions.