Communication Currents

Speaking of the Hadji Girl

October 1, 2013
Freedom of Expression

During the War in Iraq, social media technologies allowed soldiers to create, upload and circulate videos that communicated their experiences in the war zone. These videos, which commonly took the form of combat music videos or tributes to fallen soldiers, were widely covered in popular culture venues such as Rolling Stone. Initially, the Pentagon believed the creation of the videos would secure support for the war effort. However, a controversial 2006 video called “Hadji Girl” contained a song by U.S. Marine Joshua Belile that described the killing of an Iraqi civilian and her family. The video’s message generated outrage among Muslim-rights and anti-war groups, while being defended by conservative bloggers as “blowing off steam” and as an expression of free speech.

Free speech issues involved application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 88 prohibits certain types of speech, while Articles 133 and 134 more generally forbid unbecoming conduct (U.S. v. Howe 1966). Since the military is a “specialized society,” its members do not enjoy the same free speech protections afforded to the general civilian population (U.S. v. Voorhees (1954); Parker v. Levy (1974). To account for recent technological changes, Department of Defense directive 1344.10 restricts soldiers from posting unauthorized or racist material on the web and from engaging in political activities while in uniform. The military’s new directive was based on the recognition that a uniform can potentially be viewed as a military endorsement. Several of these issues are of relevance to this video, especially the posting of unapproved racist material and whether or not the soldier was wearing a uniform while expressing derogatory views.

The “Hadji Girl” video and the military’s action against Belile generated a debate over free speech that included a range of voices:  anti-war activists, Muslim and Arab-American organizations, conservative politicians, pundits, and bloggers, and active and retired military personnel. Three themes emerged that highlight issues related to free speech in the military, including the Marine’s speech while in uniform, the military’s reaction to the scandal, and the right for soldiers to express their free speech, even if it is racist.

1.  Uniforms and Military Membership. One subject of discussion in journalistic and blog coverage involved whether or not Belile could be characterized as “in uniform” at the time he performed the song. Belile’s expression “in uniform” would be a violation of Defense Department directive 1344.10. Specifically, Belile was wearing a green t-shirt and camouflage pants, with no visible insignia. While some suggested this was not enough of a uniform to violate UCMJ provisions, Belile indicated in an interview that he was reprimanded for performing in uniform. The lack of visible insignia that identified his rank and branch of service was what cleared the Marine of any wrongdoing. Thus, an element of this case was the boundary between expression of free speech as an unmarked civilian and the controlled speech demanded from marked military members.

2.  Characterizing the Military’s Response. When the video was released, the Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the performance. In fact, “Hadji Girl” was released shortly after the rape and killing of an Iraqi teenager by American soldiers, so the military came out against the video and enacted a new policy that required bloggers and video producers to get permission for posting anything on a public forum. They also restricted access to several social networking sites. The military gave two primary reasons for the action:  enhancing network security and protecting the use of bandwidth. These restrictions were officially eased in 2010.  As a result, debate ensued surrounding the military’s response. While some groups praised the approach as appropriate, conservative bloggers said it was a “politically correct” betrayal of soldiers. Bloggers and viewers criticized how the military balanced free speech with the protection of U.S. interests in the Global War on Terror. 

3.  Freedom to Express Hatred, Racism, and Bigotry. Finally, a vigorous debate addressed whether offensive speech should be protected as a freedom. Many journalists and anti-war activists argued that “Hadji Girl” reflected the pro-war mentality of the Bush Administration and the immorality confronted by soldiers. Others linked the song to real cases of male violence against female Iraqi civilians. These critics suggested that the song was hindering the war effort.  On the other hand, conservative bloggers supported the Marine’s song as common battlefield humor and a coping mechanism.

Bloggers and viewers of the “Hadji Girl” video also debated the soldier’s freedom of speech and his associated responsibilities. A focus of this debate was the fragile balance between free speech and the need to limit hate speech. The idea of responsibility for one’s speech emerged as a central component to the expression of derogatory views by members of the military, who both protect such rights through their service and are representative of U.S. cultural beliefs for global audiences. Such exchanges expose the tenuous balance military leaders’ face – they must control information and imagery that may harm U.S. interests, but also must preserve free speech for military personnel.

Ultimately, free speech emerged as the main defense used by supporters of Joshua Belile to characterize the “Hadji Girl” video and the military’s reaction. In the end, Belile was cleared of official wrongdoing. A military inquiry found he did not break rules about the release of information threatening combat operations and he was not guilty of “unbecoming conduct.”  However, he was forced to undergo sensitivity counseling. In Corporal Belile’s statement, which appeared on conservative blogger Michelle Malkin’s site, he apologized but also acknowledged that no crime was committed. In addition to free speech issues, the case of the “Hadji Girl” video also shows the need for the U.S. military to strike a balance between the benefits of social networking technologies, which foster connection with friends, family, and the wider American public, and the potential risks to morale or operational security in a warzone. 

About the author (s)

Christina M. Smith

California State University, Channel Islands

Assistant Professor