United States v.

OBrien
FACTS
The Defendant, OBrien (Defendant), burned his selective service registration
certificate and was convicted of violating a federal statute making it a crime to
mutilate the certificate. The Defendant appealed, noting that his act was symbolic
speech and should fall under the protection of the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution (Constitution).
The District Court convicted the Defendant for violating the statute, and the Court of
Appeals Reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court)
granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether symbolic speech may be suppressed when the actions done in furtherance of the speech
are contrary to governmental interest.
HELD:
The Supreme Court found that the governmental interest in preserving selective
service registration cards outweighed Defendants interest in making his symbolic
speech and that Congress had a legitimate and substantial interest in preventing
the destruction of these cards. Further the court notes that unrestrained destruction
of the cards would disrupt the functioning of the selective service system, which
was a greater problem than the abridgment of Defendants rights.
When speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of
conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech
element can justify the limitations on First Amendment speech. A governmental
regulation is sufficiently justified (1) if it is within the constitutional power of the
government; (2) if it furthers governmental interest, which is (3) unrelated to the
suppression of free expression and (4) if the governments interest outweighs the
suppression of speech
When considering suppression of symbolic speech, the interest of the government
may be taken into consideration, if it outweighs the protection afforded by the First
Amendment of the Constitution.
In this case, the Court found that the law did not violate the 1st Amendment
because its effect on speech was only incidental, and it was justified by the

compelling government interest in maintaining an efficient and effective military

draft system
Basically, this case says that any conduct which communicates is theoretically
covered by the 1st Amendment. However, that does not mean that it is immune
from government regulation