In the 1948 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, Arthur Terminiello was convicted by a Chicago court for disorderly conduct after delivering a controversial speech that incited riotous behavior outside the venue. The U.S Supreme Court overturned his conviction in a 5-4 decision, arguing that it violated his First Amendment rights to free speech. The majority opinion held that freedom of speech may indeed stir people to anger and cause unrest, but such consequences do not justify its restraint unless it clearly poses a threat to public safety or order. This ruling expanded protections for inflammatory speech under the First Amendment unless such utterances led directly to violence or "clear and present danger." However, this broad interpretation faced criticism from dissenting justices who argued it could potentially protect those promoting lawlessness or violence.

In the dissenting opinion for Terminiello v. Chicago, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous expansion of First Amendment protections that could potentially shield those who incite violence or unrest with their speech. He contended that freedom of speech should not be absolute and must have some limits to prevent harm to society at large, especially when it comes to provoking violent reactions from listeners. He also criticized the court's ruling as being too vague in defining what constitutes "a clear and present danger," which he believed would lead to confusion in future cases regarding free speech rights versus public safety concerns. Furthermore, Justice Jackson expressed concern over how this ruling might embolden individuals or groups seeking to disrupt peace and order through inflammatory rhetoric under the guise of exercising their constitutional rights.