TikTok Video Leads to Court-Martial for Military Officer

In retrospect, Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Dickerson acknowledges that he probably should not have posted the TikTok video of himself in uniform, lip-synching to a profanity-laced parody of Frozen’s “Let It Go” and giving middle fingers to the camera. His gold oak leaf insignia was clearly visible with a caption reading, “Working the day before leave be like.”

Dickerson, a 54-year-old supply officer, initially thought only his family and friends would see the joke video he made on July 14, 2023. He did not anticipate that his command, the Navy Expeditionary Warfighting Development Center, would become aware of it. However, they did, and by June, Dickerson faced a court-martial for the video, charged with conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The charge sheet accused Dickerson of acting in a contemptuous manner towards the Navy while in uniform. Despite being found not guilty at a judge-alone trial on June 13, the case has raised questions among outside attorneys about why he was charged in the first place.

Furthermore, the case highlights the legal ambiguities involved in court-martialing service members for social media posts. No single article in the UCMJ specifically governs such infractions, leaving commanders to apply the law as they see fit.

Questions also linger regarding command decisions made before the trial. For reasons the Navy has not explained, the unit’s commander, Capt. Charles Eckhart, withdrew and then re-referred the charge on the same day, stripping Dickerson of his right to a jury trial.

According to Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force attorney, charging Dickerson for the video was a “misuse and abuse of criminal justice.” She argued that while the video was “stupid” and Dickerson could have been disciplined administratively, it did not warrant a court-martial.

Brian Ferguson, a civilian defense attorney experienced in social media-related cases, agreed, stating that the same conduct could have been addressed with a counseling session rather than heavy-handed legal action.

Social media posts have increasingly gotten troops into trouble or have highlighted unresolved issues within their commands. However, Patrick McLain, a retired Marine Corps judge, noted that most social media-related cases usually focus on racist, extremist, or violent content, not mere foolishness or vulgarity.

Dickerson’s case also brings up First Amendment issues. It remains unclear how many troops have been court-martialed over social media posts in recent years as the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps do not track such cases. Outside legal experts note that such infractions can be charged under various UCMJ articles, making transparency difficult.

Dickerson and his lawyer, Rob Canoy, declined to comment on the case. However, Canoy issued a statement affirming that the court reached the right decision on the merits. “Despite the Navy’s criminal prosecution, we hold no ill will towards the command or the Navy for doing what they thought they needed to do to maintain good order and discipline,” he said.

Apparently, Dickerson’s command became aware of the video within a few weeks of its posting. On July 31, 2023, an email from a staff member indicated that another supply corps officer had brought the video to their attention. Some staffers doubted whether the behavior warranted more than internal censure, describing it as “beneath a field grade military officer.”

Dickerson apologized to his superiors on August 2, 2023, expressing his shame and embarrassment over the video. He explained that the video was a self-deprecating joke intended for his family and close friends. He admitted understanding that nothing on the internet is private, yet he felt he could remain anonymous given the vast number of TikTok users.

Eckhart issued a social media policy two days after the video was posted, reminding sailors that they are always representing the Navy and that their online actions have implications. The policy could be seen as a direct response to Dickerson’s actions, underscoring the importance of prudent social media use.

Dickerson’s case took a twist when the charges were refiled as a judge-only trial. Canoy argued in court filings that this move was manipulative and aimed at denying Dickerson his right to a trial by jury.

The judge-alone special court-martial trial, a relatively new legal option, limits the maximum punishment to six months of confinement or pay forfeitures. Such actions, according to private attorney McLain, could be seen as a way to impose less severe punishment but at the cost of denying the accused a jury trial.

Several motions to dismiss the charge were filed by Canoy, arguing that the conduct in the video did not constitute a federal crime. The judge, Cmdr. Mishonda Mosley, ultimately found Dickerson not guilty.

Dickerson’s case has sparked debate about the extent of military free speech rights and the need for more clarity in handling social media conduct within the armed forces. VanLandingham emphasized that such cases demonstrate the necessity to move prosecutorial decisions out of the hands of commanders, preserving their disciplinary authority but avoiding missteps like Dickerson’s court-martial.

The military, she said, needs to engage in “soul-searching” about managing social media activities. “This case was complete overkill,” she concluded.

Source: Navy Times