oliver wendell holmes. iver wendell holmes. holmes said, and this case, schench versus the united states is really the foundation for the freedom of speech. oliver wendell holmes said, the right to free speech is not absolute, is not absolute, and cannot be tolerated, cannot be tolerated if it presents a clear and present danger to society. freedom of speech is not absolute, it cannot be tolerated in those instances where it presents a clear and present danger to society. here's the most famous part of his quote. holmes said, you cannot go in to a crowded movie theatre and falsely yell what? fire. cause a stampede, people trampled to death. and then when you're arrested for it, turn around and say i was only exercising my freedom of what? speech. and that's 1919. over the years freedom of speech has been interpreted by the courts to mean more than just speaking, more than just speaking. in the 1960s and '70s, high school students started wearing black arm bands to school to protest the vietnam war. school pr

in addition to the chief justices, there have been other members, such as oliver wendell holmes, whoeep imprint on the court and its deliberations. but, again, the powers of the supreme court are not absolute, not without their checks or balances. each member of the supreme court is appointed by the president, and the appointment must be confirmed by the senate. and although appointment is for life, any justice can be removed by congressional impeachment. just as a president can be removed from office. the vision of our founding fathers as seen beyond the years. the three branches of our federal government have worked together with mutual respect and individual integrity for almost 200 years. we today are the posterity to whom the founding fathers referred to in the constitution. we are the inheritors of the "more perfect union" that has been passed on and handed down in peace and in war, in good times and in bad, decade decade, generation to generation. to us and to each new generation to come is the continuing challenge to preserve for ourselves and posterity the blessings. music i

as not seaworthy, she would have been broken up except for a poem that aroused the nation, oliver wendell holmesye tear her tattered ensign down, long has it waved on high, and many an eye has danced to see that banner in the sky. beneath it rung the battle shout, and burst the cannon's roar, the meteor of the ocean air, shall sweep the clouds no more. her deck, once red with heroes' blood, where knelt the vanquished foe, when winds were hurrying o'er the flood, and waves were white below, no more shall feel the victor's tread, or know the conquered knee. the harpies of the shore shall pluck the eagle of the sea. oh, better that her shattered hulk should sink beneath the wave. her thunders shook the mighty deep, and there should be her grave. nail to the mast her holy flag, set every threadbare sail, and give her to the god of storms, the lightning and the gale. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you're watching american history tv on

media doesn't continue to be a sewer it has to not just be the city of free speech free speech oliver wendell holmes was very direct about this fire and crowded theater not ok there is a limit to speech and we have reached that limit now and so companies n.g.o.s others have to intervene i pretty not quality material in social feed so people can get educated. one of the interesting points of convergence what you just spoke to is the is the c.e.o. employee that person being interviewed c.e.o. there's a spare a high level of trust in the high level of trust whether one is a republican or democrat it's really the only space in your report that i can see both trump supporters and biden supporters kind of who are roughly in the same spot in terms of trusting their employer i guess my question that they're talking before what is the playbook then for that employer what is the playbook for that company that actually has an opportunity to talk to both sides of the equation what do they need to do to be transformative and i only just go on with that what do they need to do to guide government and then geo in

oliver wendell holmes decision about crying fire in a crowded theater. it is antisocial.ally believe all of the media need to get away from opinion and towards fact. we have to get better information into the hands of people. in our study we found the company newsletters and company information is most rapid of a source of information. that's because trust is gone low or. my ceo in my company is the best source because i can see it and believe it and here it and therefore it is a new responsibility for companies and ceos in particular to stand up and speak at this time. tom: this is the first moment after i thought would be at least 17 years at davos i realize there will be no davos. you begin with richard edelman and the wonderful lionel barber telling you where we are. wonderful to start my davos with you. where are we on the --? i want to know what the vaccination is, to get the people of this country so disaffected back on board. how do we take the vaccination? richard: the disinformation around vaccine is shocking. in fact our study found only a third of people are w

in 1919, justice oliver wendell holmes wrote for one of the most infamous decisions from the supreme court. it dismissed the free speech rights and it was held sufficient that his words have the natural tendency and reasonably probable effect of deterring people from supporting the international conflict. that decision was a disgrace. the democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. under their theory any president would be removed from rhetoric that is seemed to have the natural tendency to encourage others to act in the fashion. even a call to protest peacefully couldn't be a descendent such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment for any president for the purpose of the removal. democrats are pushing this dangerously vague standard while objecting to their own remarks giving new meaning from critics. conservatives pointed to maxine waters asking supporters to confront republicans and restaurants while presley insisted the violent marches last year there needs to be unrest in the street. and harris said protesters should not

[applause abates] now, justice stevens, and later-- and previously justice oliver wendell holmes, theyetired when they were 90. would you like to break their record, or you-- any thought about that? ruth: i spent the first week in july with justice stevens in what turned out to be the last week of his life. he was remarkable. he was 99 years old. since he left the court at age 90, he has written 4 books, so yes, he's my role model. david: so, um, today, many people think that the court is very political, that people appointed to the court by democratic presidents, and those appointed by republican presidents, tend to follow the political desires of the republican or democratic party. do you think that's a fair assessment, and why do you think, if it's not fair, people have that view? ruth: people have that view because agreement isn't interesting; disagreement is, so the press tends to play up our 5-4 or our 5-3 decisions. but if we can take just last term as a typical example, we had 68 decisions after full briefing and argument. of those, 20 were 5-4 or 5-3 divisions, but 29 were una

in 1919, justice oliver wendell holmes wrote for one of the most infamous decisions from the supreme court. it dismissed the free speech rights and it was held sufficient that his words have the natural tendency and reasonably probable effect of deterring people from supporting the international conflict. that decision was a disgrace. the democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. under their theory any president would be removed from rhetoric that is seemed to have the natural tendency to encourage others to act in the fashion. even a call to protest peacefully couldn't be a descendent such a standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment for any president for the purpose of the removal. democrats are pushing this dangerously vague standard while objecting to their own remarks giving new meaning from critics. conservatives pointed to maxine waters asking supporters to confront republicans and restaurants while presley insisted the violent marches last year there needs to be unrest in the street. and harris said protesters should not

one of the checks has always been as another example oliver wendell holmes famously coined the bad man -- a blog. good men ask what is right and the bad man asked what can i get away with. the purpose of law is to get information to the bad man. that's what constitutional history is done with the pardon power could want things we are doing in the donald trump there is sending a message to future bad presidents. if you do this you'll be in a lot of trouble. cell pardon power for example is very much on the minds of this generation. the claim to power to dispense with law. i have the power to exempt my servants from conforming to the law. to put the monarchs into exile and a law in 1689 to the king can't do that any more. what they were really impressed with was that their predecessors had lost their -- for doing it and that was on the minds of the founding fathers but if president trump's punished for the things he's done future president could say i don't care about this law school article. i know the last time you tried this he got impeached and maybe had a removal trial and his busin