Freedom of Speech -- do you still have this right in the military?

Well said SSG Thomas...  All Cav!!!

SSG Thomas, you nailed it!

Well put SSG Thomas, we are part of a bigger whole, a brotherhood. If you work for a business or corporation you can be fired for "speaking your mind" or not conforming to their expected standards.

I agree with you MSG that they are two different things, but once in awhile you're going to have a soldier that doesn't know or wasn't educated about the difference and is gonna pop off on facebook or twitter about how their CoC sucks because they had to stay late or they got in trouble for some reason. Should they get in trouble for that post? Yes, i believe they should. If they didn't understand the rules of social media at the time then they should be punished accordingly (ie make them research the military rules for posting on social media and have them give a class to the whole company). And if they knew and just didn't care then its time for UCMJ<br>

<p>Just keep in mind, CDRs are afforded a lot of different venues as "punishment."&nbsp; It could be as small as a stern talking to by his/her PGS or 1SG all the way up formal UCMJ action.&nbsp; That is where CDRs discretion comes into play, along with any mitigating and extenuating factors (1st time offense, what was written/spoken, etc)</p><p><br></p>

They don't learn that in basic anymore?

Well said. At least the Military has due process. A single act in the civilian sector can justify dismissal. 

He can ask them to empty pockets...does he legally have to? NO. I just left that realm, trust me. A lot of what you say is half-truth or just patently false. A master's in engineering after doing squat in the military does not make you a legal expert. Stop spreading falsehoods.

SPC Christopher Morehouse - Technically, your boss can also bring charges against you for slander and defamation. It's just as illegal in the civilian world, the main difference is, most civilians won't go through the trouble of litigation for something so petty. But they can. Also, speaking from experience, you actually do have the right to remain silent, and to refuse search without a warrant. I have told SNCOs to obtain a warrant before searching me off-base (they wanted to check me for a weapon before entering a job fair at a public place that allowed firearms), and I was backed up by JAG. Also, a court martial IS a jury of your peers, not sure why you are saying it's not. Anything less than that is non-judicial and won't/can't show up on your criminal record.

SFC (Join to see) - Well gosh, should I reply with snark, indignation or indifference? Well I took the trouble to log in so I guess indifference is out. I'm going to preface my response with the following assumptions; Your still in service, we never served together, we have never met, and lastly Fire Support Specialist is not some secret code for JAG or legal analyst.

Since I got that out of the way, let me first agree with you on your last point. You are absolutely right, doing squat in the military and getting a master's in engineering does not make you a legal expert. I'm not sure why you bring it up, since you clearly have no idea what I did or didn't do in the military, and I in point of fact have 2 Master's degrees in engineering not one (I guess I should update my profile so you can insult me properly next time). But I think that's enough conversation on things that have nothing to do with the topic. Unless you'd like to lead us in a conversation on Respect, that's still an Army Value right? I'm sure as an NCO you try to personify the values in all your interactions, particularly very public correspondence.

Now back on topic. Please, point out to me what is patently false. I will admit, I can be wrong. It has happened before. It is likely to happen again, but you'll have to brake it down for me. I could see where some of my assertions might be a matter of opinion, but I can't really tell which ones you might categorizes as such (I'd bet those would be what you are calling half-truths) and which you are think I just made up for shits and giggles.

TSgt (Join to see) - You are right, there are plenty of examples where service members are fully protected, as you pointed out. I would counter though, that there are cases were that is not always the case. I would point specifically to the 5th Amendment as a perfect example. The first portion of the 5th states you can not be held for a serious crime with indictment by a grand jury. It then immediately states "unless your in the military". That's why UCMJ can work the way it does, and why you can get a court martial in place of a trial.

As to the court martial not being a trial thing, here is why I am saying a court martial is not a trial by peers.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/mcm.pdf

That is the manual for court martials, 2012 edition. It is an incredibly boring read, unless you want to become a legal expert. I bet SFC Holderby has read it. Anyway, there are all the rules and proceedings for court martial. Specifically take a look at Rule 503, which goes over how members of a court martial are chosen and provides guidelines. Where in a civilian court you are judged by a 'trial of your peers' which has been enterpeted today as "12 random unlucky registered voters from the local area you are being standing trial in whom have been vetted by both prosecution and defense" in the military members of a court martial are "Whoever the presiding officer decides they should be." The best you get is if you are enlisted you may formally request your court martial be made up of enlisted personal. If you do so, then the presiding officer is obligated to ensure "at least one third" the members of the court martial are enlisted. There are your peers. You get one third. Of course it then goes on to say "Unless that is inconvenient because of location, security, or expediency". So it pretty much says you can request to be judged by peers, and we will make sure one third of the people that are judging you are, unless that's too hard. Who decides if its too hard? Why the guy picking the members of course.

I'm not saying it is a bad system, but it is not nearly so friendly to the accused as the civilian court system. Oh an the last big difference between a trial and the court martial? Trials are conducted by the courts, established by congress under direction and restriction from the Constitution, a document that is incredibly difficult to change and/or amend. Just ask the gun grabbers. Now what establishes the manual of court martial? Executive order. That's it. The court martial system could literally change at any time at the whim of the POTUS.

One more thing to look up in the manual of court martials, it calls out who can authorize search. Your example of demanding they have a warrant to search your home is a good one showcasing you have similar protection as a civilian. Except if you lived on post, according to the manual, verbal affirmation from the post commander is all the 'warrant' that would be needed to search you, your house, anything of yours really. So long as it was on post. The manual does not require written warrants. The court of military appeals has "encouraged the practice of written warrants" but as of the last executive order for the manual of court martial, it is not required. Here is a snippet from from a real court case:

Right to be Free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: While the military appellate
courts have held that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures applies to service members, those courts have also held that the reasonable
expectation of privacy that informs that right is sometimes different in a military rather
than civilian context. For example, “a solider has less of an expectation of privacy in his
shared barracks room than a civilian does in his home.” United States v. Bowersox, 72
M.J. 71, 76 (C.A.A.F. 2013).

Lastly, to your last comment "anything less is administrative and not on your criminal record." I'm not sure, I don't know much about criminal records, you are probably right. But, not being on a 'criminal record' is not the same as not being punished for a crime. Technically and Artical 15 is punishment for a criminal offense. Where you late for work? That is a crime under UCMJ and you can be administratively punished. I guess then it just becomes a question of what you consider "due processes". I actually don't know if you have the right to request a court martial for the little stuff like being late to a formation if you really feel like you didn't do it and don't want to be counseled for it. I mean, I'm pretty sure I saw that on Band of Brothers or something but that's not something I recall ever being mentioned when I was in the Army. Or if it was, it was during those 2 seconds I fell asleep. SO maybe it is not as different/worse than I am thinking, but I remain by my accretion that you do not have the same rights in the military as you do in the civilian world.

I can say all the nasty, horrible, and true things about POTUS I want right now and all I'd have to worry about is being audited by the IRS. 10 years ago if I did that it would be a crime. More court snippet:
“while members of the military services are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment, ‘the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.’” Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348, 354 (1980) (quoting Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974))

“no generalized constitutional right to make political speeches or distribute leaflets” on military bases, even if they are generally open to the public. United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 685 (1985) (quoting Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 838 (1976)).

The Court of Military Appeals rejected a constitutional challenge to a statute
criminalizing an officer’s use of contemptuous language about the President. United
States v. Howe, 17 C.M.A. 165, 37 C.M.R. 429 (1967).

So... yeah that ended up being a lot longer than I intended. Kinda went down the rabbit hole there.... Anyway you are right about slander and defamation being accountable acts. The difference here though, is they could sew me in civil court if they could prove that A) I was lying and B) The incurred some sort of damage from it. Your boss though, doesn't have to prove anything, and it is is a criminal act, and it doesn't matter if it is true or not. Civilians have the right to be critical assholes. Service members just don't.

to caveat off that..... a soldier should be punished if he disrespects his leadership (ie the 1sg or the CO ) but if they're just blowing off steam from a stressful day (ie the motorpool sucks) then i see no issues with it

Seeing how any other company can fire you if they catch you speaking negatively enough on Social media, I agree that people be punished, but I do not believe we have freedom of speech in the military. If a civilian goes to a gay pride parade in uniform they are fine, should a SM do the same they are going to recieve UCMJ. We are limited in our approaches in what we can say and do with and against political parties (rallies, boycotts, etc.).