In the 1912 case of Ettor v. City of Tacoma, Joseph J. Ettor challenged his conviction for inciting violence during a labor strike in Washington state. The U.S Supreme Court upheld his conviction, ruling that it was not protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution because it had created a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil that rose far above public inconvenience or annoyance. Ettor argued that he was merely exercising his right to free speech by encouraging workers to stand up for their rights and resist exploitation by employers. However, evidence showed that Ettor's speeches led directly to violent clashes between strikers and police officers which resulted in several deaths. The court found this level of harm outweighed any potential benefit from protecting such inflammatory rhetoric as free speech. This decision established an important precedent regarding limitations on First Amendment protections when there is a risk of imminent lawless action or violence resulting from such expressions.

The dissenting opinion in the Ettor v. City of Tacoma case argued that the majority's decision was an overreach and a violation of individual rights. The dissenting justices believed that the city had no right to seize and sell personal property for unpaid taxes without first providing due process, as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that this action violated both state law and constitutional protections against unlawful seizure. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "due process," arguing it should include proper notice and opportunity for hearing before any seizure or sale takes place. In their view, allowing such actions would set a dangerous precedent where local governments could infrac on citizens' rights without legal recourse.