![]() ![]() However, it permitted an actor portraying a member of one of the armed forces in a “theatrical production” to “wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.” The federal statute, under which Schacht was convicted, made it an offense to wear a military uniform without authority. ![]() Once the victim fell down, the other two would walk up to him and exclaim “My God, this is a pregnant woman.” The script was prepared in advance and reenacted several times during the morning of the demonstration. The first two men would shout “Be an able American!” then shoot the Viet Cong with water pistols containing a red liquid that, when it struck the victim, created the impression that he was bleeding. military uniforms, and a third person was outfitted in typical Viet Cong apparel. The petitioner, Daniel Jay Schacht, was one of several people who had worn uniforms in a skit performed on the street during a Vietnam War antiwar demonstration. The case involved a classic example of whether an individual had a First Amendment right to engage in a form of expressive conduct, in this case the wearing of certain clothing. 58 (1970), the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a conviction for the unauthorized wearing of a military uniform at an outdoor performance, stating that the performance was within the definition of “theatrical production.” (AP Photo/JTW, used with permission from the Associated Press) Marines while they check a bunker in 1965. In this Vietnam War photo, a Vietnamese woman watches U.S. The Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. soldiers, he was convicted under a statute that prohibited wearing a uniform in a theatrical production that discredited the armed forces. military uniform in a skit that negatively portrayed U.S. The Vietnam War led to many protests in the United States.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |