Milan
On the morning of March 31, 1966, David Paul O'Brien and three companions burned their
Selective Service registration certificates on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse. ...After
he was advised of his right to counsel and to silence, O'Brien stated to FBI agents that he had
burned his registration certificate because of his beliefs, knowing that he was violating federal
law. He produced the charred remains of the certificate, which, with his consent, were
photographed.
For this act, O'Brien was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts….He stated in argument to the jury that he burned the
certificate publicly to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs, as he put it, "so that other
people would reevaluate their positions with Selective Service, with the armed forces, and
reevaluate their place in the culture of today, to hopefully consider my position."
In the District Court, O'Brien argued that the 1965 Amendment prohibiting the knowing
destruction or mutilation of certificates was unconstitutional because it was enacted to abridge
free speech, and because it served no legitimate legislative purpose. The District Court rejected
these arguments, holding that the statute on its face did not abridge First Amendment rights,
that the court was not competent to inquire into the motives of Congress in enacting the 1965
Amendment, and that the Amendment was a reasonable exercise of the power of Congress to
raise armies.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12229836877065678192&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_
vis=1&oi=scholarr
Vietnam war: support restriction of freedom of speech
US vs O'Brien ruling : The First Amendment did not protect burning draft cards in protest of the
Vietnam War as a form of symbolic speech.
Purpose: Incriminate O'Brien for burning draft cards which represents government restriction
of his free will
Intended audience: O'Brien and other people who wish to express their opinions on the war
Point Of View: The U.S. Court ruling against freedom of expression
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayushi
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/AP_LMSCC_Tinker.jpg
Students carrying black wristbands in protest of Vietnam war. It was protected by first
amendment in Tinker vs Des Moines.
Purpose: To display the opposition of the Vietnam war in public
Intended audience: Other students who wish to protest against the war
Point Of View: The U.S. Court ruling for the protection of students protesting the war
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pareema: The Sedition Acts, direct excerpt from section 3. (From WWI: Against Freedom of
Speech)
SECTION 3. “Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false
reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military
or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully
make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty,
mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully
obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter,
print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of
government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or
naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or
shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach,
defend, or suggest the doing
of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act
support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or
act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....”
-Sedition Act of 1918, Section 3
Purpose: To declare it illegal to openly say profane or disloyal things about the United States
government, flag, or army that would influence others to believe the same.
Intended Audience: The American public and any citizens who would commit the deed of
verbally belittling the United States.
Point of View: The United States Congress; ruling against verbal insults concerning the United
States and therefore, freedom of speech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Becca
The other day they sentenced Kate Richards O’Hare to the penitentiary for five years. Think of
sentencing a woman to the penitentiary simply for talking. The United States, under plutocratic
rule, is the only country that would send a woman to prison for five years for exercising the
right of free speech. If this be treason, let them make the most of it.
These are not palatable truths to them. They do not like to hear them; and what is more they
do not want you to hear them. And that is why they brand us as undesirable citizens , and as
disloyalists and traitors. If we were actual traitors—traitors to the people and to their welfare
and progress, we would be regarded as eminently respectable citizens of the republic; we
would hold high office, have princely incomes, and ride in limousines; and we would be pointed
out as the elect who have succeeded in life in honorable pursuit, and worthy of emulation by
the youth of the land. It is precisely because we are disloyal to the traitors that we are loyal to
the people of this nation.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/debs/works/1918/canton.htm
Intended Audience: The people in Canton, Ohio, who are socialists and who Debs is trying to
convince of his views
Purpose: To get across Deb's views on the war and how he did not believe that speech should
be restricted
Point of View: Against World War 1 and the restriction of speech