ell.4
The fact that Masses dealt only with the statutory construction of the Espionage Act limited its impact upon the evolution of the standard for First Amendment protection through the 1950s. In addition, Hand's construction of the Statute was rejected by the Court of Appeals and the opinion was overshadowed by the Schenck decision two years later. In fact, many did not like the "incitement" test's lack of examination of the surrounding circumstances in which the words were uttered; the same words can and do have different meanings in different contexts. Ironically, as will be seen below, the incitement test continued to live on in legal scholarships and dissenting opinions; eventually, it would be combined with the descendant of the clear and present danger test to form the modern standard of protection for political speech.
The clear and present danger test further evolved shortly after the Schenck, Debs, and Frohwerk decisions. Ironically, Justice Holmes dissented in Abrams v. United States, and presented a new version of the clear and pre
...