In Hartzel v. United States (1943), the defendant, Mr. Hartzel, was convicted for using the U.S Postal Service to defraud investors through a fraudulent investment scheme that involved purchasing British bonds at discounted prices with promises of high returns once World War II ended and Britain could repay its debts. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by rejecting his argument that he couldn't be found guilty because there was no evidence showing he didn't intend to fulfill these promises if conditions allowed it in future. The court ruled that intent to defraud is demonstrated not only by intentions for future actions but also by knowingly making false statements or representations at present time regardless of whether they might become true later on.

In the dissenting opinion for Hartzel v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous precedent in terms of freedom of speech and press. He contended that while Hartzel may have been misguided in his beliefs and actions, he had not committed any criminal act under the Espionage Act as there was no evidence to suggest he intended to cause insubordination or disloyalty within military forces or obstruct recruitment efforts. Furthermore, Murphy asserted that it is essential for citizens to be able to express their opinions freely without fear of punishment unless they pose a clear danger; this case did not meet such criteria according to him. The justice also expressed concern over how broadly the court interpreted "intent" in this case which could potentially lead to unjust convictions based on mere suspicion rather than concrete proof.