ABSTRACT
In Abrams v. United States one will find Oliver Wendell Holmes's most celebrated legal opinion. It is a dissent, and dissenting opinions usually fail to elicit much support from future generations of judges. Holmes's dissent in Abrams was different, however. Over the years, it would become one of the most influential legal opinions, easily eclipsing the majority opinion. Four years after his decision in Abrams, Holmes dissented again in Gitlow v. New York. Benjamin Gitlow was a member of the Socialist Party's more radical "Left Wing section." Therefore, Holmes's belittling of Gitlow as a member of a fringe group was not an earnest gesture to weigh evidence. It was, one may conclude, more properly understood as an effort to quell the public's fear. As with his Abrams dissent, Holmes's Gitlow dissent would be adopted by future generations as a cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence.
