United States v. O'Brien
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 24, 1968 Decided May 27, 1968
Full case name: United States v. David Paul O'Brien Citations: 391 U.S. 367; 88 S. Ct. 1673; 20 L. Ed. 2d 672; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2910 Prior history: Defendant convicted, D. Mass.; conviction affirmed, sentence vacated and remanded, 376 F.2d 538 (1st Cir. 1967); rehearing denied, 1st Cir., 4-28-67 Subsequent history: Rehearing denied, 393 U.S. 900 (1968)
Holding
A criminal prohibition against burning draft cards did not violate the First Amendment, because its effect on speech was only incidental, and it was justified by the significant government interest in maintaining an efficient and effective military draft system. First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Earl Warren Associate Justices: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
Majority by: Warren Joined by: Black, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas Concurrence by: Harlan Dissent by: Douglas Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I; U.S. Const. amend. I; 50 U.S.C. § 462(b)(3) (1965 amendment to the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948)

United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled that a criminal prohibition against burning shit did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Though the Court recognized that O'Brien's conduct was expressive as a protest against the Vietnam War, it considered the law justified by a significant government interest that was unrelated to the suppression of speech and was tailored towards that end. Image File history File links Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court. ... The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and is the only part of the judicial branch of the United States federal government explicitly specified in the United States Constitution. ... The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of Massachusetts. ... The Federal Reporter is a case law reporter in the United States that is published by West Publishing. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States District Courts: District of Maine District of Massachusetts District of New Hampshire District of Puerto Rico District of Rhode Island The court is based at the John Joseph... Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was a California district attorney of Alameda County, the 30th Governor of California, and the 14th Chief Justice of the United States (from 1953 to 1969). ... Hugo Black Hugo LaFayette Black (February 27, 1886 – September 25, 1971) was a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1937 - 1971). ... William Orville Douglas (October 16, 1898 – January 19, 1980) was a United States Supreme Court Associate Justice. ... John Marshall Harlan II (May 20, 1899 – December 29, 1971) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ... William J. Brennan, official portrait, 1976. ... Justice Potter Stewart Potter Stewart (January 23, 1915 – December 7, 1985) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ... Byron White, official portrait. ... Abe Fortas Abraham Fortas (June 19, 1910 - April 5, 1982) was a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice. ... Thurgood Marshall (July 2, 1908 – January 24, 1993) was an American jurist and the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: Article One of the United States Constitution Article One of the United States Constitution states the establishment of the legislative branch of the United States government, known as the Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate. ... The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. ... The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States. ... The Selective Service Act (40 Stat. ... // Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court cases in special series of books called reporters or law reports. ... 1968 (MCMLXVIII) was a leap year starting on Monday (the link is to a full 1968 calendar). ... The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States and is the only part of the judicial branch of the United States federal government explicitly specified in the United States Constitution. ... The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. ... Freedom of speech is the right to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related right to hear what others have stated. ... Combatants Republic of Vietnam United States Republic of Korea Thailand Australia New Zealand The Philippines National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam Democratic Republic of Vietnam People’s Republic of China Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea Strength US 1,000,000 South Korea 300,000 Australia 48,000...

Though O'Brien upheld the government's power to prosecute what was becoming a pervasive method of anti-war protest, its greater legacy was its application of a new constitutional standard. The test articulated in O'Brien has been subsequently used by the Court to analyze whether laws that have the effect of regulating speech, though ostensibly neutral towards the content of that speech, violate the First Amendment. Though the O'Brien test has rarely invalidated laws that the Court has found to be "content neutral," it has given those engaging in expressive conduct—from the wearing of black armbands to the burning of flags—an additional tool to invoke against prohibitions. Burning the Flag of the United States Flag desecration is a blanket term applied to various acts that intentionally deface or dishonor a flag, most often a national flag (though other flags may be defaced as well). ...

Background of the case

Draft cards under the Selective Service Act

In 2025 the United States instituted a peace-time draft with the Universal Military Training and Service Act (also called the Selective Service Act), which required all male American citizens to register with a local draft board upon reaching the age of 18. In 1965, Congress amended the Act to prohibit the willful destruction of "draft cards", or registration certificates. These were small white cards bearing the registrant's identifying information, the date and place of registration, and his Selective Service number, which indicated his state of registration, local board, birth year, and his chronological position in the local board's classification record. Conscript redirects here, to artificial script. ... The Selective Service Act (40 Stat. ... Type Bicameral Houses Senate House of Representatives President of the Senate Dick Cheney, R, since January 20, 2001 Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R, since January 6, 1999 Members 535 plus 4 Delegates and 1 Resident Commissioner Political groups (as of January 4, 2005 elections) Democratic Party Republican Party...

The Act had already required all eligible men to carry the certificate at all times, and prohibited alterations that would perpetrate a forgery or fraud. The 1965 amendment, however, made it a separate crime under 50 U.S.C. § 462(b)(3) to "knowingly destroy" or "knowingly mutilate" the card. As this was passed at a time when public burnings of draft cards to protest the Vietnam War were a growing phenomenon, many observers (including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) believed that Congress had intentionally targeted such protesters.^[1] The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States. ... Combatants Republic of Vietnam United States Republic of Korea Thailand Australia New Zealand The Philippines National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam Democratic Republic of Vietnam People’s Republic of China Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea Strength US 1,000,000 South Korea 300,000 Australia 48,000... The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States District Courts: District of Maine District of Massachusetts District of New Hampshire District of Puerto Rico District of Rhode Island The court is based at the John Joseph...

O'Brien's protest and conviction

On the morning of March 31, 1966, David Paul O'Brien and three companions burned their draft cards on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse, in front of a crowd that happened to include several FBI agents. After the four men came under attack from some of the crowd, an FBI agent ushered O'Brien inside the courthouse and advised him of his rights. O'Brien proudly confessed to the agent and produced the charred remains of the certificate. He was subsequently indicted for violating § 462(b)(3) and put on trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.^[2] Mural in South Boston South Boston is a densely populated neighborhood in Boston, Massachusetts, located south of the Fort Point Channel and abutting Dorchester Bay. ... For other uses of the initials FBI, see FBI (disambiguation). ... The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction is comprised of the state of Massachusetts. ...

O'Brien insisted on representing himself at his trial and argued that the Act was unconstitutional. He explained to the jury that he burned the draft card publicly to persuade others to oppose the war, "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." O'Brien was convicted and sentenced to the maximum of six years, as a "youth offender" under the now repealed Youth Corrections Act, which submitted him to the custody of the Attorney General "for supervision and treatment."^[3] Pro se is a Latin adjective meaning for self, that is applied to someone who represents himself (or herself) without a lawyer in a court proceeding, whether as a defendant or a plaintiff and whether the matter is civil or criminal. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. ...

Appeal

On appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 1965 amendment ran afoul of the First Amendment because it singled out "persons engaging in protest for special treatment."^[4] However, although O'Brien could not be convicted for protesting, the First Amendment could not prevent him from being required to carry a draft card. The court believed that all the factual issues necessary for a "nonpossession" conviction had been fully litigated, and so affirmed his conviction on that basis and remanded for appropriate resentencing.^[5] An appeal is the act or fact of challenging a judicially cognizable and binding judgment to a higher judicial authority. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States District Courts: District of Maine District of Massachusetts District of New Hampshire District of Puerto Rico District of Rhode Island The court is based at the John Joseph...

Both O'Brien and the United States petitioned for review by the Supreme Court, with the government in United States v. O'Brien (No. 232) challenging the lower court's invalidation of § 462(b)(3) and O'Brien challenging in the nonpossession conviction in O'Brien v. United States (No. 233).^[6] 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. O'Brien had also argued to the Court that the First Circuit had unconstitutionally sustained his conviction for a crime of which he was neither convicted nor tried, and much of the Court's questioning of the government during oral argument challenged this ruling. However, with that decision vacated, the Court did not reach that issue. This law-related article does not cite its references or sources. ... Oral arguments are verbal presentations to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or the party when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. ...

Supreme Court's decision

Chief Justice Warren's decision for the Court rejected O'Brien's argument that the 1965 amendment to § 462(b)(3) was only passed to stifle the speech of anti-war protesters. The law did not restrict speech on its face, but instead only addressed conduct that was not necessarily expressive, and applied without regard to whether the draft card was destroyed in private or before an audience. It also did not matter to the Court if Congress had passed it with the intention of stifling protest, as long as it could be justified on another basis; Chief Justice Warren declared that "this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive."^[7] The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the judicial branch of the government of the United States, and presides over the Supreme Court of the United States. ... Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was a California district attorney of Alameda County, the 30th Governor of California, and the 14th Chief Justice of the United States (from 1953 to 1969). ...

Despite finding that § 462(b)(3) only prohibited conduct, the Court continued its First Amendment inquiry to determine whether the law was unduly restrictive of the element of O'Brien's conduct that was expressive. The Court plainly questioned whether this communicative element was "sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment" in O'Brien's case, and so this portion of the Court’s opinion was effectively hypothetical musing.^[8] Nevertheless, Justice Harlan, in his concurring opinion, wisely recognized this as the "crux" of the Court’s decision.^[9] In law, the term dicta is used to refer to a judges statement of legal opinion that is not directly relevant to the case being heard. ... Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are the members of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the Chief Justice of the United States. ... John Marshall Harlan II (May 20, 1899 – December 29, 1971) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ...

Warren wrote that when a regulation prohibits conduct that combines "speech" and "nonspeech" elements, "a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms." The regulation must 1) be within the constitutional power of the government to enact, 2) further an important or substantial government interest, 3) that interest must be unrelated to the suppression of speech (or "content neutral", as later cases have phrased it), and 4) prohibit no more speech than is essential to further that interest. The Court ruled that § 462(b)(3) satisfied this test.^[10]

First, the law was, to the Court, unquestionably within the "broad and sweeping" constitutional powers of Congress under Article I to "raise and support armies" by "classify[ing] and conscript[ing] manpower for military service." Under the second prong of the test, the issuance of registration certificates was regarded as a "legitimate and substantial administrative aid" in the functioning of the draft system, as were laws that insured the "continuing availability" of issued draft cards. The Court rejected O’Brien’s characterization of the draft cards as nothing more than a superfluous notification of registration. Instead, the cards advanced "the smooth and proper functioning of the system" through functions such as providing proof of registration, facilitating contact between the registrant and draft board, reminding the registrant of the need to notify the board of changes of address, and further preventing fraud or forgery. Third, the registration and raising of troops was unrelated to the suppression of speech. And fourth, the Court saw "no alternative means" by which the government could ensure that draft cards would continue to be available than a law that prohibited their willful destruction. Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of government, Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate. ...

Both the government’s interest and § 462(b)(3), Warren wrote, "are limited to the noncommunicative aspect of O'Brien's conduct. The governmental interest and the scope of the 1965 Amendment are limited to preventing harm to the smooth and efficient functioning of the Selective Service System. When O'Brien deliberately rendered unavailable his registration certificate, he wilfully frustrated this governmental interest. For this noncommunicative impact of his conduct, and for nothing else, he was convicted."^[11]

Harlan's concurrence

Justice Harlan, though joining Warren's opinion, wrote a brief separate concurrence.^[12] Harlan wished to extend First Amendment protection to instances in which, though the majority's test was satisfied, the regulation at issue additionally had "the effect of entirely preventing a ‘speaker’ from reaching a significant audience with whom he could not otherwise lawfully communicate." This was adopted in later cases by the Court as an additional prong of the O’Brien test, that the regulation must leave (as phrased in later decisions) "ample alternative channels" of communication. As Harlan felt that O’Brien had other means by which he could communicate his message, he had no problem affirming his conviction. Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are the members of the Supreme Court of the United States other than the Chief Justice of the United States. ... John Marshall Harlan II (May 20, 1899 – December 29, 1971) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ...

Douglas's dissent

Justice Douglas was the sole dissenter.^[13] Though he did not express disagreement with the Court's First Amendment analysis, he believed that the asserted government interest was only valid when the nation was in a state of war as declared by Congress (which had not been the case since World War II). Douglas questioned whether a peacetime draft was even constitutional, and wanted to reschedule O'Brien for reargument along with two cases challenging the draft that were denied review by the Court the same day O'Brien was handed down,^[14] even though the parties in O'Brien had not presented arguments or briefs on that issue. William Orville Douglas (October 16, 1898 – January 19, 1980) was a United States Supreme Court Associate Justice. ... Combatants Major Allied powers: United Kingdom Soviet Union United States Republic of China and others Major Axis powers: Nazi Germany Italy Japan and others Commanders Winston Churchill Joseph Stalin Franklin Roosevelt Harry Truman Chiang Kai-Shek Adolf Hitler Benito Mussolini Hideki Tojo Casualties Military dead: 17,000,000 Civilian dead... Brief redirects here. ...

Subsequent developments

Vietnam War protests and developments in the draft

As the Vietnam War became more unpopular, the draft became more of a focal point for opposition and, despite O'Brien, public protests involving the burning of draft cards proliferated. Though the Court has not revisited this specific issue, the Court ruled for other anti-war protesters very soon after O'Brien in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,^[15] which involved public school students who were suspended for wearing black armbands, and Cohen v. California,^[16] in which a man was convicted for disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket that bore the words "Fuck the Draft" in a state courthouse. Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. ... Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. ... Disturbing Tha Peace (DTP) is a rap crew from Atlanta which is comprised of Ludacris, Shawnna, I-20, Tity Boi, Lil Fate, Jay Cee and St. ...

Due in part to increasing domestic opposition, the U.S. reduced its involvement in Vietnam and completed withdrawal of its forces in 1973; the draft ended the same year. On January 21, 1977, the day after his inauguration, President Jimmy Carter signed Executive Order 11967, which granted a full pardon to anyone who had committed or been convicted of a non-violent violation of the Selective Service Act.^[17] This included everyone from draft dodgers to protestors such as O'Brien. The pardon covered all such acts committed between August 4, 1964, the date of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and March 28, 1973, the end of American withdrawal. An inauguration is a ceremony of formal investiture whereby an individual assumes an office or position of authority or power. ... James Earl Carter, Jr. ... A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it. ... Their actions were criminal offences and once they had left the country draft dodgers could not return or they would be arrested. ... Chart showing the US Navy’s interpretation of the events of the first part of the Gulf of Tonkin incident The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was an alleged pair of attacks -- the second of which did not occur -- by North Vietnamese gunboats on two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and...

In 1980, however, Congress reinstated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System, but without reinstating an active draft. In 1984, the Supreme Court upheld the registration requirement against a claim that it violated the privilege against self-incrimination.^[18] The following year, it upheld the conviction of a man who refused to register despite his argument that this refusal constituted a political protest.^[19] As of 2006, male citizens (and many male noncitizen residents) between the ages of 18 to 25 are still required to register for preparation should a military draft be reinstated. The same provision in § 462(b)(3) of the Act under which O'Brien was convicted remains law, though destroying draft cards is no longer a common form of protest and recent arrests for that offense are unknown. 2006 is a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ...

Subsequent First Amendment decisions

For a few years following O'Brien, the decision was primarily cited to by the Court for the proposition that an illicit legislative motive would not render a law unconstitutional.^[20]. Finally, in 1972, the Court relied in part on O'Brien to invalidate a law that prohibited picketing outside public schools that was not related to a labor dispute. Quoting O'Brien, the Court held that the law "imposes a selective restriction on expressive conduct far 'greater than is essential to the furtherance of [a substantial governmental] interest.'"^[21]

Two years later, the Court declared in Spence v. Washington that the O'Brien test was "inapplicable" when the asserted government interest "directly related to expression in the context of activity."^[22] Spence ruled that a man who displayed an American flag with a peace symbol taped to it was engaging in protected expression; in 1989, the Court similarly upheld the right to burn the American flag as expressive conduct in Texas v. Johnson.^[23] Holding A Texas statute that criminalized the desecration of the American flag violated the First Amendment. ...

The Court revisited the necessary fit between the important governmental interest and the means to actualize that interest in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984), in which it held that the nexus need merely be reasonable. The Court also merged its doctrine of time-place-manner restrictions and the O'Brien test into an intermediate scrutiny hybrid. Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the middle level of scrutiny applied by courts deciding constitutional issues through judicial review. ...

See also

• Conscription in the United States
• Opposition to the Vietnam War

The United States has employed conscription (mandatory military service, also called the draft) several times, usually during war but also during the nominal peace of the Cold War. ... Opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War began slowly and in small numbers in 1964 on various college campuses in the United States. ...

Notes

1. ↑ On the intent behind the amendment, the Court of Appeals wrote, "We would be closing our eyes in the light of the prior law if we did not see on the face of the amendment that it was precisely directed at public as distinguished from private destruction. In other words, a special offense was committed by persons such as the defendant who made a spectacle of their disobedience." O'Brien v. United States, 376 F.2d 538, 541 (1st Cir. 1967).
2. ↑  The facts of O'Brien's protest, arrest, and trial are summarized in the Supreme Court's opinion, United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 369-70 (1968).
3. ↑  This provision of the Youth Corrections Act was formerly codified at 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b).
4. ↑ 376 F.2d at 541. The court's decision was written by Chief Judge Bailey Aldrich, and joined by Judges McEntee and Coffin.
5. ↑  Id. at 541-42.
6. ↑  Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold argued the case before the Supreme Court for the United States; he was joined on the brief by Assistant Attorney General Fred M. Vinson, Jr. (the son of the late Chief Justice Fred Vinson), Assistant Solicitor General Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., and Dept. of Justice Attorneys Beatrice Rosenberg and Jerome M. Feit. Marvin M. Karpatkin, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued for O'Brien.
7. ↑  391 U.S. at 383.
8. ↑  Id. at 388.
9. ↑  Id. at 376.
10. ↑  Id. at 376-77.
11. ↑  Id. at 381-82.
12. ↑  Id. at 388-89.
13. ↑  Id. at 389-91.
14. ↑  Holmes v. United States, 391 U.S. 936, and Hart v. United States, 391 U.S. 956.
15. ↑  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
16. ↑  Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
17. ↑  Executive Order 11967 —Relating to violations of the Selective Service Act, August 4, 1964 to March 28, 1973.
18. ↑  Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).
19. ↑  Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985).
20. ↑  See, e.g., Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 224 (1971).
21. ↑  Police Dep't of Chicago v. Moseley 408 U.S. 92, 102 (1972) (internal marks in original).
22. ↑  Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 415 n.8 (1974).
23. ↑  Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

The Federal Reporter is a case law reporter in the United States that is published by West Publishing. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States District Courts: District of Maine District of Massachusetts District of New Hampshire District of Puerto Rico District of Rhode Island The court is based at the John Joseph... Bailey Aldrich (April 23, 1907 - September 25, 2002) was a judge of the United States federal courts for more than 48 years. ... Edward Matthew McIntee (October 21, 1906 - February 14, 1981) was a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. ... Frank M. Coffin was born in Lewiston, Maine on July 11, 1919. ... The United States Solicitor General is the individual appointed to argue for the Government of the United States in front of the Supreme Court of the United States, when the government is party to a case. ... Erwin Nathaniel Griswold was born to parents James Harlen and Hope (Erwin) on July 14, 1904 in East Cleveland, Ohio. ... Brief redirects here. ... Many of the divisions and offices of the United States Department of Justice are headed by an Assistant Attorney General. ... Frederick Moore Vinson (January 22, 1890 – September 8, 1953) served the United States in all three branches of government. ... The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a major American non-profit organization with headquarters in New York City, whose stated mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.[1] It... Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. ... Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. ... Holding A Texas statute that criminalized the desecration of the American flag violated the First Amendment. ...

External links

• Full text of the decision at findlaw.com
• Audio recording of oral argument in United States v. O'Brien in RealAudio format.
• First Amendment Library entry on United States v. O'Brien; includes list of newspaper and law review articles about the case.