PLS 460 United States v Obrien

PLS 460 United States v Obrien - regulation is sufficiently...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
United States v O'Brien Facts of the Case: David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime. Question: Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech? Conclusion: No. The 7-to-1 majority, speaking through Chief Justice Earl Warren, established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified. The formula examines whether the regulation is unrelated to content and narrowly tailored to achieve the government's interest. "[W]e think it clear," wrote Warren," that a government
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest." Decisions Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/04/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online