In the case of Rosen et al. v. United States (1917), the Supreme Court upheld convictions under the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a federal crime to interfere with military operations or support U.S enemies during wartime. The defendants were charged for distributing leaflets that criticized American involvement in World War I and encouraged resistance to the draft. They argued that their First Amendment rights had been violated as they were merely expressing their opinions against war and conscription, not inciting violence or rebellion. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, rejected this argument stating that when speech presents a clear and present danger to national security - particularly during times of war - it is not protected by the First Amendment. He famously wrote: "When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight." This ruling established what came to be known as 'clear-and-present-danger' test for determining when government may lawfully limit free speech.

In the dissenting opinion for Rosen et al. v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the defendants' conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional because it violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press. He contended that distributing leaflets against military draft during World War I did not pose a "clear and present danger" to national security or obstruct military recruitment, as required by law for prosecution. Instead, he viewed this act as an expression of political disagreement with government policy which should be protected under free speech rights. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's interpretation of 'intent' in this case; arguing that one could only infer intent from actions rather than assuming it based on content alone - thus making convictions subjective and potentially biased.