O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), the Supreme Court argued David Paul O’Brien’s action of burning his draft card. “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” (United). Many people witnessed the event including some FBI agents; consequently, people from the crowd attacked O’Brien and his associates which resulted in an FBI agent escorting O’Brien to the courthouse (United). “For this act, O’Brien was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts” (Fraleigh 277). O’Brien’s intention behind burning the certificate was to influence other people to adopt his “antiwar beliefs,” he said, “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” (Fraleigh 277). O’Brien also 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. [However,] the District Court rejected these arguments” (United). O’Brien thought that his right of freedom of speech could protect him as his act was a symbolic speech. His argument is that freedom of expression “includes all modes of …show more content…
Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the issue was whether the prohibition against wearing an armband to school violates the freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment. “Mary Beth Tinker, John Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt wore black armbands to school in protest of American policy in Vietnam” (Fraleigh 272). All principals of Des Moines’s public schools decided that an armband should be removed, and refusal to remove it would result in a suspension. As a result, Mary, John, and Christopher were suspended. Parents were unsatisfied and decided to take the case to the court. Apparently, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court (Fraleigh 272). Subsequently, the Supreme Court discussed that students should not have been suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest against the Vietnam War. “The Court said [,] students ‘do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate’” (Tinker). Just because protesters were students does not mean that schools can suspend them just for being quiet and passive; all they did was wearing the black armband to symbolize their point of view. The Supreme Court also said that students are free to express their opinions if they do not “materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” and do not “collide with the rights of others” (Tinker). After all, students caused no harm to