Essay On Irene Ryan Vs United States

1447 Words3 Pages

Social justice movements strive to maintain a clear message when engaging in acts of protest and exercising free speech. Conveying these messages can range from boycotting a certain product to destroying personal government issued documents. The latter act is commonly associated with protesting policy initiatives that contest the interests of movements. In Irene Ryan v. United States, we observe Ryan’s symbolic speech when she is arrested for burning her National Registration and Identification card (NRI). NRI cards were a result of the Identification and Registration Act which required all those who reside in the United States to present a document that displayed personal information such as citizenship status. Irene Ryan, the executive director …show more content…

United States v. O’Brien offers what is known as the O’Brien test which determines that infringements must be in reach of constitutional power and provide substantial interest of the government. While the Court held that “O’Brien’s conduct (burning the draft card) placed a burden on a legitimate and important government activity” and the government’s interest was considered sufficient to pass the test, government interests evolve as society progresses which can determine expansions on certain kinds of speech …show more content…

The Court finds through the O’Brien test that symbolic speech is protected only if the speech does not undermine the interests the government institutions uphold. We observe a clear example of how the O’Brien test is applied in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and in what way this case can attest to the unconstitutionality of Section 3 in the Identification and Registration Act. In this case, the Court decided that “as long as speech does not disrupt the educational process, government has no authority to proscribe it” (262). This reasoning could be applied to Irene Ryan v. United States as well because the symbolic speech Ryan took part in had no effect on threatening the interest the government has established and the interests the law displays. Therefore, Ryan’s action is protected and Section 3 provides an unlawful “authority to proscribe it” due to the fact that her speech posed no threat to the government

Open Document