Publication Date
2010
Abstract
In early 2008, the Department of Defense issued Directive 1344.10. Paragraph4.3.2.1 of the Directive prohibits non- active-duty military members who are nominees or candidates for political office from using images of themselves in uniform as the "primary graphic representation"in any campaign media. With the stroke of a pen, the Department of Defense effectively barred a powerful symbol of many a candidate's character, experience, and knowledge from use while on the campaign trail. This new regulation sets the stage for an epic clash between two entrenched doctrines: the strong First Amendment protection the Supreme Court has long afforded political campaign expression (which almost certainly includes the wearing of military uniforms as part of a political campaign) and the Court's military deference doctrine(a significant curtailing of constitutional protection of military members in deference to the judgment of Congress and the military). Thus, Directive 1344.10 finds itself between a rock and a hard place. If a military member were to challenge subparagraph4.3.2.1, the Court would face a hard choice: either finally define the outer ambit of its military deference doctrine and protect the political campaign speech of non-active-duty military members, or else leave protection of even this core political speech in the hands of Congress and the military. This Note makes the Court's choice and concludes that, even in light of the purposes of subparagraph4.3.2.1 and the military deference doctrine, the Department of Defense's invasion into core political speech protected by the First Amendment has gone a bridge too far with Directive 1344.10.
Recommended Citation
Pinson, Andrew A.
(2010)
"A Bridge Too Far? Directive 1344.10 and the Military's Inroads on Core Political Speech in Campaign Media,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 44:
No.
3, Article 7.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol44/iss3/7