Moderate Opinion of United States v. O' Brien

By Jordan Davies

      It is 1968, and this year a feller by the name of David Paul O'Brien burned his draft card in front of the Boston Courthouse allegedly, in opposition of the Vietnam War. He was then arrested for breaking a law (1948 Act) which stated that a person can't “knowingly destroy” a certificate such as a selective service draft card. O' Brien feels his Constitutional rights were violated in terms of the First Amendment, and as a moderate, I partially concur and partially dissent in my opinion of the case. The more conservative side of me feels that O’Brien’s actions were selfish and inconsiderate, especially when there are thousands of American soldiers fighting in Vietnam this very minute, risking their lives and getting blown to smithereens just trying to advance our militarily and political causes. I am a bit confused as to whether or not he burned his card in opposition to just the Vietnam War, or to the draft also.  Though it is his right to express his opinion under the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech", I believe he did so in an unnecessary and disrespectful manner, by publicly burning his draft card, which made his motives quite clear. It seems only reasonable to assume that he was protesting in public with the purpose of enticing a revolt, otherwise, why would he have displayed himself as he did?  My radically conservative side says that if he doesn't agree with the U.S. foreign policy, then he shouldn't live here. He knows full well that a simple citizen such as himself doesn't get to decide which wars we fight in, nor is his opinion significant in foreign policy, which makes me feel that his whiny butt shouldn't be given the time of day and if he can't find contentment in U.S. policy, he should find a more ‘democratic’ place to live. The United States would never get anywhere in terms of foreign policy if they were concerned with every single citizens opinion and based their policy on such public opinions.  Frankly, his opinion doesn't matter, so why does it matter if he is heard, or if his rights are violated if he is enticing revolts against the government?  After all, its not the fault of the United States that it has to baby-sit every single other country, besides, all his little revolt did was prompt disunity and weakness of the country, and in a time of war, that in itself could be ultimately detrimental to national security and the unity of the country. The precedent of Gitlow v. New York backs this argument. In that case, a socialist, Gitlow was instigating a government overthrow and because his actions resulted in potential danger to public safety and security, he was charged for violating the law. States can forbid speech such as in Gitlow, or as in O' Brien in order to protect the general public. If this is the case, I personally don’t think the government should stand for this one insolent man who appears to have anti-American militarily views when it quite honestly, already has enough on its plate.  In a nutshell, O'Brien should be squashed like a bug, and his opinion silenced since it was done in a revolt enticing, disrespectful, and anti-American manner.      

     The liberal side of me thinks that what O' Brien did was solely a frustrated man exercising his rights.  After all, he was peacefully protesting, and it didn't lead to revolt, that we know of. He didn't do anything that ultimately affected government policy or caused any type of riot that led to injuries or deaths, and if it had, this would be a different and more serious matter. However, since it didn't, O’Brien’s protest should neither be condemned nor silenced. If people such as O’Brien are oppressed for peacefully speaking his mind, what does that suggest about the country’s regard and respect for the Constitution?  He has a right to protest, and he is not the first, nor the last to do so, and it therefore baffles me as to why exactly his actions are being isolated and condemned. The government shouldn't be worried about a few men burning their draft cards, because it neither gets them out of the draft, nor influences the government’s policy. People starting riots are what the government should be spending their time worrying about, and not just a peaceful protester like O’Brien.