The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of David Paul O'Brien for burning his draft card in violation of a federal statute. While O'Brien claimed his act was protected symbolic speech, the Court found that the statute furthered substantial government interests in maintaining an efficient draft system and did not violate O'Brien's First Amendment rights since he knew his act was illegal. The statute was intended to prevent the destruction of draft cards and ensure their continued availability, which facilitated communication between registrants and local boards.

1. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed. 2d 672 (1968).
I. Procedural History:
The Defendant,O’Brien(Defendant),wasconvictedforsymbolicallyburninghisdraftcardundera
federal statute forbiddingthe alteringof adraft card. His convictionwasupheldafterthe Supreme Court
of the UnitedStates(Supreme Court) foundthe law constitutional.
II.Facts:
DavidPaul O’Brienwasconvictedforburningselective service registrationcertificateshopingothers
wouldadopthis antiwarbeliefs. DavidPaul O’Brienknew he wasviolatingfederal law.
III.Issue:
Was the 1965 amendmentunconstitutional becauseactof burningdraftcard wasprotected“symbolic
speech”withinthe First Amendmenteventhoughhe knew itwasinviolation of federal law?
Holding:No.The 1965 amendmentdidnotviolate hisconstitutional rights,since he wasaware burning
the draft card was illegal,itdid notqualifyassymbolicspeech underthe FirstAmendment.
IV.Reasoning:
Whena male reaches18, he is requiredbythe Universal MilitaryTrainingandService Acttoregister
withthe local draft board.By the 1965 amendment,addedto§ 12 (b) (3) of the 1948 Act whichisthe
provisionatissue.Thisprovisionstatessubjectingcriminal liabilitynotonly, one who forges,alters,orin
any matterwhochanges”but alsoone whoknowinglydestroysorknowinglymutilatescertificate.
O’Brienarguesthe 1965 amendmentwasunconstitutional asappliedtohimbecause hisactswere
“symbolicspeech”,whichall modes of communicationof ideasbyconduct,since he wasin
“demonstrationagainstthe war”. The court cannot view thatan apparentlylimitlessvarietyof conduct
can be labeled“speech”.The courtheldthatwhen“speech”and“nonspeech”elementscombinedin
the same course of conduct,a sufficientlyimportantgovernmentalinterestinregulatingthe nonspeech
elementcanjustifyincidental limitationsonFirstAmendmentfreedoms.Tocharacterize the qualityof
the governmental interestwhichmustappear,the courthas employedavarietyof descriptiveterms:
compelling,substantial,subordinating,paramount,cogent,andstrong.The courtfeelsitissufficiently
justifiedif itiswithinthe constitutionalpowerof the government;if itfurthersanimportantor
substantial governmentalinterest.The constitutional powerof Congresstoraise andsupportarmiesand
to make all lawsnecessary, andproperto thatendis broad andsweeping.The courtfeelsCongresshas
the powerto establishasystemof registrationforindividualsliable fortrainingandservice,andmay
require suchindividualswithinreasontocooperate inthe registrationsystem.If these certificateswere
destroyedthe followingwouldbe defeated:proof anindividualhasregistered,informationon
certificateswouldfacilitate communicationbetweenregistrantsandlocal boards,certificatescarry
continual reminders forregistranttochange information.The manyfunctionsperformedbythe
SelectiveServiceestablishbeyondareasonabledoubtthatCongresshasa legitimateandsubstantial
interestinpreventingthe unrestraineddestructionandassuringtheircontinuingavailabilityby
punishingpeople whoknowinglyandwilfullydestroyormutilate them.The courtmade itclearthat
1965 amendmentprotectsthissubstantial governmental interest.