In the 1941 case of Bridges v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two contempt convictions violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and press. The first conviction involved Harry Bridges, a labor leader who sent a telegram to the Secretary of Labor criticizing an ongoing court case related to his union activities; it was published in newspapers nationwide. The second involved Los Angeles Times publisher Norman Chandler for publishing editorials critical about pending cases involving local strikes. Both were convicted under California law for attempting to influence court decisions through their public comments. The Supreme Court overturned these convictions by expanding its interpretation of "clear and present danger," originally established in Schenck v United States (1919). It held that only statements posing serious threats to administration justice could be punished as contemptuous, not those merely expressing opinions on ongoing legal proceedings or criticisms against judges' rulings or conduct - even if they might have some impact on proceedings due to their wide dissemination or potential influence over public opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Bridges v. California, Justice Frankfurter argued that freedom of speech does not grant an absolute right to publish anything and everything one pleases without any consequences. He believed that the majority's decision failed to consider adequately the potential harm caused by such publications on court proceedings and public order. He contended that a balance must be struck between free speech rights and maintaining respect for judicial processes, which he felt was disrupted in this case due to inflammatory statements made about ongoing legal cases. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how this ruling could set a precedent allowing media outlets or individuals to potentially influence or interfere with fair trials through their published content.