.jpg)
The Wilcox case is one of the most interesting of CAAF's term. Once the oral argument audio goes up on the CAAF web site, it will no doubt garner more hits than most. Here's the CAAF web site's summary of the case:
GCM conviction of disobeying an officer, violating a regulation by attending a Ku Klux Klan rally, making a false official statement, larceny of government property, and wrongfully advocating anti-government and disloyal statements and encouraging participation in extremist organizations while identifying himself as a "U.S. Army Paratrooper." Granted issue questions whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a determination that Appellant’s statements to an undercover NCIS agent on the internet were either detrimental to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces when the military nexus reflected in the record consisted of Appellant’s reference to being a "US Army paratrooper," and his statements raise a significant issue under the First Amendment.
The Army Court's opinion is available here. United States v. Wilcox, No. ARMY 20000876 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 22, 2006). We previously discussed Wilcox here and linked to Sacramentum's overview of the facts here.
Posts
1 comment:
From a policy standpoint, I'm happy to have this type of behavior by servicemembers criminalized, but I wonder whether it will be found to pass First Amendment scrutiny even in light of the narrower First Amendment rights enjoyed by servicemembers. I'd feel a lot better about the government's case if the evidence showed the accused was recruiting other servicemembers, etc.
Post a Comment