Or, here is a real life example to display this idea. Most recording companies require artists to put out "clean" versions of songs that are considered to be "inappropriate" in nature. In addition, they also require parental advisory stickers to be placed on albums that are deemed "inappropriate". Although the original pressures to do so were political in nature, this censorship is not a violation of the artist's right to expression under the First Amendment due to the fact it is done by the recording companies and not the government. Another mistake people make in interpreting the First Amendment is confusing speech and nonverbal expression and how both can be potentially protected by it. Anyone would confirm the action of what I am doing is speaking. In addition, most people concur in the courts and say that sign language is also speech. But is burning a flag speech? What about a draft card? Are those actions permitted under the First Amendment? A simplified answer to those questions is yes, yes, yes, and no. Yes, burning the flag is a form of nonverbal communication. By burning a flag, one can express many things. One can express one's dissatisfaction with our country or its political views. One can express dissatisfaction with our countries foreign or domestic policies. Depending upon the political climate in this nation, the possibilities are endless. Yes, one can also express dissatisfaction by burning one's draft card. However, burning a flag is protected speech, but burning a draft card is not. This is a good example of the bureaucracy and inconsistencies that can occur with the judicial system. The burning of the flag is recognized as expression, but the burning of the draft card has other implications according to United States vs. O"Brien. In O"Brien, the court ruled that the "nonspeech" element to burning the draft card out weighted the speech element. O"Brien also states that the law that convicted David O"Brien did not intent to violate Mr.