Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Schacht v. United States — Opinion of the Court

An actor, like everyone else in our country, enjoys a constitutional right to freedom of speech, including the right openly to criticize the Government during a dramatic performance. The last clause of § 772 (f) denies this constitutional right to an actor who is wearing a military uniform by making it a crime for him to say things that tend to bring the military into discredit and disrepute.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Schacht v. United States — Opinion of the Court

In light of our earlier finding that the skit in which Schacht participated was a 'theatrical production' within the meaning of § 772 (f) , it follows that his conviction can be sustained only if he can be punished for speaking out against the role of our Army and our country in Vietnam. Clearly punishment for this reason would be an unconstitutional abridgment of freedom of speech. The final clause of § 772 (f) , which leaves Americans free to praise the war in Vietnam but can send persons like Schacht to prison for opposing it, cannot survive in a country which has the First Amendment.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black Schacht v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Certainly theatrical productions need not always be performed in buildings or even on a defined area and as a conventional stage. Nor need they be performed by professional actors or be heavily financed or elaborately produced. Since time immemorial, outdoor theatrical performances, often performed by amateurs, have played an important part in the entertainment and the education of the people of the world.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature