Schenck v. United States

"The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not shield advocacy urging conduct deemed unlawful under the Espionage Act"
"Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, concluded that Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of every act depends on the circumstances. "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." During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47

          Unanimously, the court decided that Mr. Schenck was not protected by the 1st Amendment of free speech because it violated the Espionage Act.  This is actually quite interesting for for i believe this is a country heavily founded on a Constitution which specially Supreme Court Marshalls hold  highly when making their decisions.  However, i understand how during a time of war in the early 1900's it opinions may change. The US during WWI was a very different place from what it is today, freedom of speech has taken a whole new life of it own.  Nowadays, there certainly is a greater tolerance even during war times.  But back to Mr. Schenck's time, i can certainly understand where both parties stand, one could argue he was in his every right to speak out against the draft and show how unfair he thought it was; however, on the court's side, take the actions of sending those circulars to the draftees could have affected the overall attendance of the military which would ofcourse put the country at risk.  This case is a classic example of how we should not take things so literal.