Article 88 UCMJ – Contempt Toward Officials – Military Defense Lawyers

UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes contemptuous words against certain officials by commissioned officers. The people protected under Article 88 include:

• The President
• The Vice President
• Congress
• The Secretary of Defense
• The Secretary of a military department
• The Secretary of Homeland Security
• The Governor or Legislature of any U.S. state or territory

Article 88 applies only to commissioned officers. Enlisted personnel cannot be convicted under Article 88 (they may be charged under Article 134 or Article 117 instead). The statute is rarely used, but when it is, charges are politically sensitive and heavily scrutinized.

In the era of social media, political polarization, memes, TikTok, livestreaming, and heated online debates, Article 88 allegations have increased significantly. Officers are disciplined for posts, comments, jokes, or even private conversations—especially when someone screenshots and forwards them to command.

Florida bases—including NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, MacDill AFB (CENTCOM/SOCOM), Eglin, Hurlburt Field, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, NAS Key West, and all Coast Guard Sectors—see numerous politically charged speech disputes involving officers. These cases often arise from private group chats, political arguments, sarcastic comments, and anti-government memes.

Gonzalez & Waddington is globally recognized for defending high-profile speech-based offenses. We expose exaggeration, lack of intent, political bias, context manipulation, and violations of protected expression.

➤ Request a Defense Strategy for Article 88 Allegations

What Article 88 Criminalizes

A commissioned officer violates Article 88 when they use words that are:

• Contemptuous, AND
• Directed toward one of the protected officials, AND
• They are in an official capacity or identifiable by position

Contemptuous words include:

• Insults
• Derogatory statements
• Obscene language directed at an official
• Public attacks on legitimacy or character
• Online posts expressing hatred, ridicule, or disdain
• Mockery or demeaning commentary

This offense is unique because it is one of the few UCMJ articles that specifically addresses speech rather than conduct.

Who Can Commit an Article 88 Offense?

Only the following individuals can be convicted under Article 88:

• Commissioned officers (O-1 through O-10)
• Cadets & midshipmen at service academies
• Officer candidates

Enlisted members are exempt from Article 88 but may be charged under other articles (e.g., Article 92, 117, or 134).

Conduct That Usually Leads to Article 88 Allegations

• Posting anti-government memes or jokes online
• Using offensive language about the President or Congress
• Livestreaming political opinions while in uniform
• Harsh political commentary on TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook
• Mocking elected officials in private group chats
• Criticizing specific governors or state officials
• Podcasts or YouTube videos with political rants

In most cases, accusations arise from screenshots sent anonymously to command.

Elements the Prosecution Must Prove

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The Accused Was a Commissioned Officer

Article 88 does not apply to enlisted personnel.

2. The Officer Used Contemptuous Words

Phrases must be clearly insulting—not simply critical or humorous.

3. The Statement Was Directed at a Protected Official

Specific identification is required; generic political opinions may be protected.

4. The Conduct Was Wrongful

Private or joking comments may not meet the standard.

Why Article 88 Cases Are Often Weak

Most Article 88 cases fail because:

• The speech is protected by the First Amendment
• The officer did not intend contempt
• Comments were made in private settings
• Someone else leaked or misinterpreted statements
• The officer was off-duty, off-base, and out of uniform
• The comments were satirical or exaggerated for humor
• Political bias motivated the report
• The context shows the officer was joking

Intent and context are critical—and often misunderstood by command.

Why Article 88 Allegations Are Common in Florida

Florida’s unique environment contributes to high numbers of political-speech cases:

• Strong political polarization in Florida communities
• Heavy use of social media among military members
• Large veteran and political influencer population
• Officers stationed at high-security commands (CENTCOM/SOCOM at MacDill)
• Frequent political protests, rallies, and marches
• High levels of alcohol-related nightlife posting

Political speech is common—and frequently misinterpreted.

Florida-Specific Article 88 Scenarios

1. Anti-government memes posted after drinking in Ybor City

Often screenshot by someone else before deletion.

2. Group chat arguments during election season

Someone inside the chat leaks screenshots to command.

3. Negative comments about state or federal leaders

Florida’s diverse political climate creates heated conversations.

4. Off-duty political debates filmed at the beach

Videos posted online are misinterpreted as “contempt.”

5. Officers in sensitive commands penalized for political expression

Especially at MacDill AFB, Jacksonville, and Coast Guard Sectors.

6. Retaliation cases

Subordinates or rivals weaponize political comments to harm careers.

7. Misinterpreted humor

Jokes or satire mistaken for misconduct.

8. Emotional rants during stress or deployment cycles

Officers post things they later regret—but not criminally.

How Article 88 Investigations Work

These cases often involve:

• NCIS, CID, OSI, or CGIS
• Command-directed investigations (15-6, JAGMAN, CDI)
• Social media forensics
• Screenshot analysis
• Witness interviews
• Review of audience and context

Common Investigation Errors We Expose

• No proof the officer intended contempt
• Misinterpretation of satire or humor
• Political bias influencing reports
• Statements taken out of context
• Private speech treated as public misconduct
• Wrong identification of the “protected official”
• Someone else posted content using the officer’s account

Article 88 cases are extremely defensible when handled by experienced counsel.

Defense Strategies for Article 88 Contempt Toward Officials

1. First Amendment Defense

Private speech, political discussion, or satire is protected unless clearly contemptuous and harmful.

2. Lack of Intent

Comments must be knowingly contemptuous—not emotional or casual.

3. Context Restoration

The defense reconstructs the conversation or full message thread.

4. Misidentification of the Speaker

Shared accounts, stolen phones, or group posts may distort attribution.

5. Political Bias Defense

We expose retaliatory or partisan motives behind complaints.

6. Private Speech Defense

Comments made in private settings do not automatically qualify as contempt.

7. Florida-Specific Defense Factors

• Heavy nightlife posting culture
• Tourist interactions misinterpreted
• Local political debates escalating

8. Lack of Harm to Good Order & Discipline

This is often the easiest element to defeat.

Pro Tips for Anyone Facing Article 88 Allegations

• Do NOT speak to investigators about your posts.
• Do NOT delete social media—it may harm your defense.
• Preserve all screenshots and message threads.
• Document your memory of the conversation privately.
• Avoid political posts until your case resolves.
• Identify witnesses who can verify context.
• Hire a civilian military defense attorney immediately.

➤ Protect Your Career – Get Article 88 Defense Now

Article 88 – Frequently Asked Questions