Final answer:
Supreme Court Justice Holmes indicated that wartime conditions justify restrictions on speech that could create a clear and present danger, influencing the necessity to balance free expression with national security. While the clear and present danger test set precedent, subsequent court decisions evolved to impose stricter thresholds for limiting free speech.
Step-by-step explanation:
When Supreme Court Justice Holmes stated, "during wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime can be punished," he meant that the context of war alters the permissibility of certain speech. He elaborated that speech which creates a clear and present danger to national security or public order can be legally restrained. Notably, this standard came from the landmark case Schenck v. United States, which set a precedent for evaluating free speech limitations under the First Amendment.
Holmes's words influenced later Supreme Court decisions by establishing that not all speech is protected under the First Amendment, particularly if it poses a clear and present danger. However, over time, the rigid application of this doctrine has been loosened, as seen in later cases such as Brandenburg v. Ohio, which protected speech unless it called for imminent lawless action.
Personal agreement or disagreement with Holmes's view may vary, but it would be grounded in one's interpretation of the First Amendment and the balance between civil liberties and national security. Those in agreement might argue that in times of heightened national threat, certain restrictions are necessary to maintain order and security. Conversely, one could disagree on the basis that such restrictions could be used to unjustly suppress dissent and violate fundamental freedoms, even in times of crisis.