The Uniform Code of Military Justice Limits Speech Rights of American Military Service

Decision: The Court of Appeals, held that an officer's speech at scene of accident was made according to his official obligations, and an officer's articles in a local magazine were not secured against countering by the city police office under the First Amendment. AFFRIMED. Nixon seeks a reversal of the district courts grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” (Jacobus 93). Just like the Freedom of Religion there are limitations placed on the Freedom of Speech so that other people’s rights aren’t compromised. For example, people are not allowed to present true threats, or “fighting words” to another person. This restriction was put into play in the court case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. The Court ruled that “fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace and may be punished consistent with the First Amendment.” (Ruane 3-4). In this case if someone was to use “fighting words” which is their perceived freedom of speech, it would not only violate the law, it could violate someone’s freedom of pursue life, liberty, and happiness. With this, we can see that freedom is not always as it

The Disciplinary Regulations of the United States Army define military discipline as "a strict and honorable compliance by all servicemen with the order and rules prescribed by laws, military regulations and orders of commanders (superiors)."

He assumed, well educated people should not have been sent to war to fight for something they do not agree with. In fact, he believes that only those who agree with the Vietnam War should be the ones forming the military lines.

Article 92 of the uniform code of military justice is when a solider fails to obey an order or regulation given to them by an NCO, officer, or someone pointed above them in section or squad. Article 92 is perhaps the most important article in the entirety of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Any military member, whether in the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, or Coast Guard who fail to obey a lawful order of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order. It lays down the ground law, the absolute line which may not be crossed. Everything else in the uniform code of military justice is explanation of the various forms that disobeying an order can

I believe it does, however, during wartime things may be redefined such as in the USA Patriot Act where some of the civil rights are waived if an individual is suspected of terroristic connection of activity. Our government needs to be able to gain knowledge and protect our country. In times such as these, it is necessary to adjust or modify the guidelines set in place.

Many times in history the Supreme Court has been faced with deciding how to treat civil liberties during war time. This raises the question, what restrictions if any should the court allow during wartime. The court is faced with making the decision on civil liberties during wartime for security reasons, and to protect the rights of the individual. While some may say that the no exception stance may put our national security at risk during war time, No exception is the only stance that is constitutionally acceptable as proven through the analysis of the different stances by examining related cases, text, and the constitution.

This law prohibited any speech that interfered with the drafting of men into the armed forces. The media is forced to silence, due to the fear of any repercussions, from the government. Merely voicing an opinion in the media about any war is now so looked down upon that it takes away freedom from the media to reach all types of audiences.

The First Amendment did not protect speech was given strength orders but however it was not following directions, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their stream of language production will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.

He said, “At the time, the war didn’t make sense…. To me, it looked like a rich man’s war since there was no purpose to be there.” And he fits in with a majority of the protesters and dissenters of the 1960s. They also did not believe the war was justifiable and opposed the draft. “The Baltimore Four” inspired a movement of religiously-motivated activists destroying draft board records using symbols steeped in their faith tradition, as my grandfather stated previously. (___). “At least 30 such actions, which destroyed over a million draft files and associated records, took place between October of 1967 and early 1972” (___). “The Baltimore Four” fits right into the time period of the 1960s (rejection of the Vietnam War by destroying drat cards to protest

An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the

In the speech “ Beyond Vietnam- A Time to Break Silence”, Dr. King speaks out on the issues brought upon by the Vietnam War and how it has a negative impact on African Americans. He displays a frustrated and irritated tone to shed light on this problem in order to entice anger within the African American community of Harlem and call them to fight against social injustice and fight for their civil rights.

As a member of the United States military, there are times that the very freedoms that are being defended are not extended to those sailors and soldiers that are in charge of that task. One of those freedoms is freedom of speech. As a veteran of the United States Navy, I find the limitation of speech for a member of the military to be contradictory at best. The very fact that members of the armed forces cannot speak freely about government officials, as well as government issues that affect their lives, seems to be controversial because it limits one of the freedoms these sailors and soldiers have vowed to protect. To oppose the right of free speech of any member of the military takes away from the importance of the job they do. It has been argued that a member of the military should be mindful of whom they work for and the chain of command that orders come from, and that any display of dissatisfaction can be seen as disobedience or even treason.

Additionally, the issue of Free Speech largely defined the Vietnam War era in the United States. The morality of the war was murky as the U.S. government wants to slow the growth of communism in the Vietnam region in Southeast Asia (Hoffer 2017). A large number of Americans objected the war. In addition, students nationwide protested the injustices they perceived the U.S. government perpetrated. Defined through various lens, the counterculture era had issues such as free speech, the sexual revolution, hippies, and protests. The Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) took place during Vietnam War. It is important to put proper historical significance of the case. The nation’s attitude towards free speech changed and the laws passed during the time reflected it. During World War II, and its immediate aftermath, the In a 6-3 Supreme Court case, W.V.A. v. Barnette (1944) decision related to

A lawful order can be given by anyone and everyone who enlists in the army promises to obey the orders of those who are appointed over them. Article 91 covers that you cannot strike or assault a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office, willfully disobey the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, or treat with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. So this is where Article 91 and 92 are similar. If you know of a lawful order