Document: 418 U.S. 676 94 S.Ct. 3039 41 L.Ed.2d 1033 SECRETARY OF the NAVY, Appellant,v.Mark AVRECH. No. 72—1713. Argued Feb. 20, 1974. Decided July 8, Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, See 419 885, 95 156. Solicitor Gen. Robert H. Bork for appellant. Dorian Bowman, New York City, appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellee Mark Avrech was convicted by a special court-martial on charges of having violated Art. 80 Uniform Code Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 880. The specification under 80, which punishes attempts to commit offenses otherwise punishable UCMJ, charged an attempt offense first and second clauses 134, 934, namely, publish statement disloyal United States members Armed Forces 'with design promote disloyalty disaffection among troops.' 2 Upon conviction, appellee sentenced reduction in rank lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture three months' pay, confinement at hard labor one month. commanding officer suspended confinement, but remainder sentence sustained Staff Judge Advocate General Navy. subsequently given bad-conduct discharge after unrelated conviction. 3 In December 1970, brought this action District Court Columbia, asserting jurisdiction 5 §§ 701—706, 28 1331, 1361. He claimed that 134 unconstitutionally vague overbroad its face as applied, his protected speech, he without sufficient evidence criminal intent. sought order declaring conviction invalid requiring Secretary Navy expunge any record restore all pay benefits lost because After denied relief, Appeals reversed, holding is vague. 155 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 477 F.2d 1237 (1973). We noted probable jurisdiction. 414 816, 64, 38 48 Following oral argument merits, we directed counsel file supplemental briefs issues exhaustion remedies. 4 Without benefit further argument, are unwilling decide difficult jurisdictional issue parties have briefed. Assuming, arguendo, had circumstances case review decision court-martial, our Parker v. Levy, 417 733, 2547, 439 (1974), would require reversal Appeals' merits appellee's constitutional challenge 134. believe even most diligent zealous advocate could find ardor somewhat dampened arguing where thus foreordained. accordingly leave future resolution issue, reverse judgment authority supra. Augenblick, 393 348, 89 528, 21 537 (1969); Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 249, 93 2041, 2059, 36 854 Judgment reversed. 6 Mr. Justice STEWART, concurring judgment. 7 I indicated my view 773, 439, However, did not prevail Parker, upheld general articles against attack. Given result, controls substantive claims here, agree it be inappropriate case. Consequently, am content those another day, concur Court. 8 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 9 Article 880, covers attempt; offense. active duty Vietnam combat zone like soldiers night lot time hands. typed following statement: 11 'It seems me South Vietnamese people do little defense their country. Why should go out fight battles while they sit home complain about communist aggression. What we, cannon fodder or human beings? . has no business over here. This conflict between two different politically minded groups. Not direct attack States. peace talks with North V.C. That's just fine dandy except how many men died week argued shape table? Do dare express feelings opinions threat perpetually hanging heads? Are your worth risking court-martial? must strive if than complete withdrawal. We've been sitting ducks too long. .. .' 12 His plan mimeograph operator make copies distribute. But instead turned superior followed. Appellee, private class, reduced deprived confined month labor. review. suit, federal rights, ground, other things, punished speech. think claim merit; affirm Appeals. 13 Soldiers, lounging around, speak carefully officers who within earshot. World War were free lambast 'Black Jack' Pershing distant, remote, mythical. also groused bankers' war, munitions makers' war volunteered. said offended military superiors. since write Congressmen Senators it, saw reason why talk ourselves. 14 Talk is, course, incitement; incitement leads action. wrote purpose showing marines unit, might, released, created only revulsion. Or might produced strong reaction. Conceivably more shared views. setting up rendezvous wanted AWOL laying dark plot officers. attempting comrades arms oppressive nature fighting. attempt, successful, best resulted letters family Congressman read what local published newspapers made them subject debate legislative halls. 15 Secrecy suppression views today sanctions increases rather repels dangers world live. full dedication spirit First Amendment real solvent tensions day. That philosophy may hostile minds. Nation clear system apart lives Constitution allows discussion great merely trivial ones—subject limitations time, place, occasion never control. 16 steps take backward measured standards open society.* 17 dissent from 18 MARSHALL, whom BRENNAN joins, 19 Court's decison establishes erred overturning basis unconstitutional vagueness these circumstances, does present appropriate vehicle consideration substantial presented. claimed, however, Arts. applied case, infringed rejected passed upon court's 354, 1237, 1239 pass instance. therefore vacate remand reconsideration questions light Levy. * J. Oppenheimer, cruelly cast into outer darkness Atomic Energy Commission notorious 'witch hunt,' Edward R. Murrow's TV show 'See It Now' January 1955: 'The trouble secrecy denies government itself wisdom resources whole community, country, way you can let almost anyone say thinks—to try give synopses, popularizations, mediations technical things can, deny false—argue false, uncorrupted communication. 'And is—this so heart living complicated technological world—it freedom saying, 'Does really secret?' 'Couldn't that?' 'Are acting wise way?' enjoy chattering—not aware live in, cannot met ways. fact govenment us—all us.' C. Curtis, Oppenheimer Case, Trial Security System 181 (1955).

Category: 1