Yes, they did. Even though it was not as effective as modern procedures
Answer: The answer is:
Case name: <u><em> Schenck v. United
</em></u>
<u><em>States</em></u>
Summary of the case and ruling: <em>During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck general secretary of the U.S. Socialist Party, and Elizabeth Baer distributed some 15,000 leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude.The leaflets called for men who were drafted to resist military service. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment. .</em>
Effects on the interpretation of the First Amendment:
Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent. Holmes reasoned that the widespread dissemination of the leaflets was sufficiently likely to disrupt the conscription process. Famously, he compared the leaflets to falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, which is not permitted under the First Amendment.
Explanation:
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
<u><em>"words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent".</em></u>
<u><em /></u>
