Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a clear and present danger to society.

She was sentenced to one to fourteen years at San Quentin Penitentiary, but was released after eleven days upon posting a bond and presenting evidence of poor health.

Brandeis wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Holmes, that many scholars have lauded as perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech ever written by a member of the Supreme Court.

[10] In Brandeis's words:[1] But they [the founding fathers] knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.

Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.Shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling, Anita Whitney was pardoned by the Governor of California based on Justice Brandeis' concurring opinion.

[11] Philippa Strum, oft the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, asserted that Whitney was a pacifist who believed in working within the American political system.

Whitney was, in effect, put on trial for her association with labor groups as well as her own reform activities, which included fighting for equality and advocating for a more equitable political and economic system.

This indeed happened by the 1950s–60s, as the American judiciary transitioned to a focus on the risk of imminent lawless action caused by speech that government officials find inappropriate.