Flamin Country Joe
In 1992, an antiwar activist, Country Joe, violated a Georgia statute by acting out a skit that urged people to refuse to fight in the Persian Gulf war, overthrow the government and form a socialist regime. He then burned a military uniform in opposition to the war, and was arrested for his actions. This paper will examine the Georgia statute that Country Joe violated and address the constitutionality of that law. The Georgia statute under which Country Joe was arrested made it a crime "to wear the uniform of the armed forces of the United States in any way that brings discredit upon that armed force. Further, the uniform may not be used in any way that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force. Further, the uniform may not be defaced, mutilated or treated in a contemptuous manner." The question in this case is not whether Country Joe violated the Georgia statute, but whether the law is constitutional. Following the standards set forth in Texas v. Johnson, we must first establish that Country Joe's actions constituted expressive conduct. Next, if his conduct was expressive, we must decide whether the state statute is related to suppression of free speech. If the statute
Pols 4131, Freedom of Expression Hypothetical; Bill Thomas The second clause of the Georgia statute, which outlaws wearing a military uniform while advocating the overthrow of the government, is also unconstitutional. Two cases can be used to show the unconstitutional value of this clause: Spence v. Washington and Brandenburg v. Ohio. Spence involved a man, Harold Spence, affixing a peace symbol to both sides of the U.S. flag in protest of the killings in Cambodia and at Kent State University. He was arrested for "improper use" of the flag. The Court held the state's "improper use" statute unconstitutional because it "...impermissibly infringed a form of protected expression." At issue here was the improper use of the American flag. The state felt as though the flag should promote a sense of nationhood and not be used for protest. Harold Spence, however, felt the flag was the perfect symbol to use in making his point. The Court agreed. In a Per Curiam decision, the Court held that "...the context in which a symbol is used for purposes of expression is important, for the context may give meaning to the symbol." The same holds true for Country Joe. Country Joe wore the army uniform as a symbol. Therefore, his wearing the uniform gave context for the meaning of the symbol. Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969)
Some common words found in the essay are:
Country Joe's, Country Joe, United Georgia's, Brandenburg Ohio, Texas Johnson, USC S702, Gulf Rag, Army Navy, Justice O'Connor, York Court, country joe, country joe's, texas johnson, overthrow government, georgia statute, johnson 491 397, 397 1989, 491 397 1989, 491 397, texas johnson 491, johnson 491, georgia's statute, brandenburg ohio, expression hypothetical bill, freedom expression hypothetical,
Approximate Word count = 2169
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page double spaced)
|