When a country is at war, Justice Holmes observed that "many things that might be stated in a period of peace are so detrimental to its effort that their expression would not be tolerated so long as men fight, and that no Court could treat them as protected by any fundamental right."
In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court determined that First Amendment protection does not apply to speech that poses a "clear and present danger." This ruling demonstrates how the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment occasionally trades off individual liberties in favor of maintaining societal order.
On January 9, 1919, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in which Schenck's attorney claimed that the Espionage Act was illegal and that his client was merely practicing his First Amendment-guaranteed right to free expression.
To know more about Schenck v. United States, refer:
https://brainly.com/question/29543783
#SPJ4