Question

primary source 1
supreme court opinion by chief justice oliver wendell holmes, jr., march 3, 1919 schenck v united states. charles schenck and others were arrested and imprisoned under the sedition act. they appealed against this to the supreme court, who delivered their ruling in march, 1919, just after the war ended. the supreme court is the highest judicial court in a country or state, having the power to act as the final interpreter of the constitution and federal laws.
... we admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants would have been within their constitutional rights. but the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done... the right to free speech does not protect a man who falsely shouts fire in a theatre and causes a panic... when a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace become such a challenge to the war effort that they cannot be endured so long as men fight, and that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
prompt your response
does the supreme court seem to be arguing for or against people resisting the war? explain.

Explanation:

The Supreme - Court opinion states that during war, certain speech that might be protected in peace becomes a challenge to the war effort and is not protected. It implies that actions and speech during war are judged differently. So, the Court is arguing against people resisting the war as it deems such actions and speech not protected by constitutional rights during war - time.

Answer:

The Supreme Court is arguing against people resisting the war. It claims that in times of war, speech and actions that might be constitutional in peacetime can be a challenge to the war effort and are not protected by constitutional rights.