In The Context Of The Supreme Court's 1925 Decision In Gitlow V. New York, How Did Justice Holmes' Invocation Of The 'clear And Present Danger' Standard, As Opposed To The More Stringent 'bad Tendency' Test, Reflect The Influence Of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty On The Court's Emerging Jurisprudence Regarding The Scope Of The First Amendment's Protection For Subversive Speech?

In Gitlow v. New York (1925), Justice Oliver Holmes introduced the 'clear and present danger' standard in his dissenting opinion, marking a significant shift in First Amendment jurisprudence. This standard, which requires the government to prove that speech poses an immediate and real threat, was influenced by John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, particularly his 'harm principle.' Mill argued that speech should only be restricted if it causes direct harm to others, such as inciting imminent violence. Holmes' adoption of this more stringent test reflected Mill's ideas by raising the bar for restricting speech, moving away from the broader 'bad tendency' test. This shift emphasized protecting speech unless a clear and present danger existed, aligning with Mill's advocacy for individual freedom and limiting government intervention. Thus, Holmes' standard became a cornerstone for more robust First Amendment protections, evolving the Court's approach to uphold free speech more rigorously.