What happened to David Paul O Brien?
Case Summary and Outcome The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for burning a military draft registration certificate on the steps of a courthouse. The case was brought by David Paul O’Brien who was criminally convicted for burning his military draft certificate on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse.
Why was Obrien convicted?
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.
Who is Albert Snyder?
Albert Snyder, the father of Matthew, sued the Westboro Baptist Church, Phelps, and his daughters for defamation, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy.
What is the O’Brien test First Amendment?
O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.
Why did Snyder Sue Phelps?
Snyder sued Phelps and the church claiming, among other things, that their actions caused him severe emotional distress. In defense, Phelps argued that his speech (the picketing and the signs) was protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Why is Texas v Johnson important?
In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the Supreme Court struck down on First Amendment grounds a Texas flag desecration law. The 5-4 decision has served as the center point of a continuing debate regarding the value of free speech as exercised through the burning of the U.S. flag as a form of political protest.
Who won United States VO Brien?
United States (No. 233). The Court decided both actions together and, in a 7–1 decision, upheld the constitutionality of § 462(b)(3), vacated the First Circuit’s decision and reinstated O’Brien’s sentence.
What is the O’Brien test?
The O’Brien test is thus: The law in question must. be within the Constitutional power of the government to enact. further an important or substantial government interest. That interest must be unrelated to the suppression of speech (or “content neutral”, as phrased in later cases)