Flamin Country Joe essays

Flamin Country Joe essays 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 Joes 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 is not related to expression, then the less stringent standard announced in United States v. OBrien, which regulates noncommunicative conduct, controls. If it is related to expression, then the regulation is outside of the OBrien test and we must decide whether this interest justifies Country Joes conviction under a more demanding standard. First, in deciding whether Country Joes conduct was expressive, we must ask if an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it. Given the fact that Country Joe is a known antiwar activist, it is apparent that he intended to convey ...