In Fiske v. Kansas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Harold B. Fiske, a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), who was convicted under a Kansas statute for promoting industrial unionization - an act deemed by the state as advocating criminal syndicalism or violence to effect political and economic change. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Fiske had advocated for violence or unlawful methods to bring about such changes, thus violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights which guarantee due process and equal protection under law. This case marked one of the first instances where freedom of speech protections were extended beyond federal jurisdiction into state laws, setting precedent for future cases involving First Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Fiske v. Kansas, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the state of Kansas had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that Fiske's membership in an organization advocating for industrial change was directly linked to any imminent danger or threat of violence. He believed that mere advocacy should not be criminalized unless it is intended and likely to incite immediate illegal action, a principle later adopted by the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Holmes emphasized on protecting freedom of speech even when it advocates unpopular views, as long as there is no clear and present danger associated with such speech or assembly.