Posted on Jan 2, 2014
590
574
16
Recently I've been hearing countless remarks, and seeing posts from soldiers and veterans alike. Down talking our commander in chief. How do you feel about this? Should this be allowed within our ranks? Does freedom of speech really play a part?<br><br>
Posted in these groups: 
Barack Obama
Respect
Barack Obama Respect
Edited 12 y ago
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 929
5
5
0
I do not think that, as serving members, we have the right to speak out. Of course, once you leave the uniform behind its a whole other story, but I do know that we loose a few things by serving, and freedom of speech is one of those things.
It is not as if we become less contentious or that we suddenly have lobotomies and begin agreeing with each directive, but what we do become is "Government property" held by certain restrictions that many of us never notice, but the thing is, we do loose the right to free speech, among other things, for stepping up and filling the roles we choose to fill.
As to speaking out once you have left the military, be it retired or simply seperated, I am not sure they could actually keep us from voicing out beliefs after that, no matter the regulations, because we've built up a lot of views during our years, and I am not sure anything this side of death could keep us from speaking out! Of course, I could be seriously off base here... but that's just my view...
It is not as if we become less contentious or that we suddenly have lobotomies and begin agreeing with each directive, but what we do become is "Government property" held by certain restrictions that many of us never notice, but the thing is, we do loose the right to free speech, among other things, for stepping up and filling the roles we choose to fill.
As to speaking out once you have left the military, be it retired or simply seperated, I am not sure they could actually keep us from voicing out beliefs after that, no matter the regulations, because we've built up a lot of views during our years, and I am not sure anything this side of death could keep us from speaking out! Of course, I could be seriously off base here... but that's just my view...
(5)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
Cpl Sakowicz,
I wouldn't say we LOSE our right to free speech, but rather that we have it restricted in certain aspects. I think the most constructive way to view it is that we - by the simple fact of being affiliated with an organization - become de facto representatives of it, which implies a duty to act and speak in a professional manner. (That's not legally correct or the actual basis, I just find it an easy framework that results in the same outcome!)
It gets more complicated in the reserve component and retired communities. Reserve component people are not subject to UCMJ most of the time - and NG personnel are subject to their STATE CMJ during drills. It gets really murky what they can say when. Technically, retired service members still have an affiliation ("retired pay" is actually "retainer pay" - i.e. you are technically subject to recall).
I wouldn't say we LOSE our right to free speech, but rather that we have it restricted in certain aspects. I think the most constructive way to view it is that we - by the simple fact of being affiliated with an organization - become de facto representatives of it, which implies a duty to act and speak in a professional manner. (That's not legally correct or the actual basis, I just find it an easy framework that results in the same outcome!)
It gets more complicated in the reserve component and retired communities. Reserve component people are not subject to UCMJ most of the time - and NG personnel are subject to their STATE CMJ during drills. It gets really murky what they can say when. Technically, retired service members still have an affiliation ("retired pay" is actually "retainer pay" - i.e. you are technically subject to recall).
(3)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
Cpl Glynis Sakowicz - I do not agree that you give up any of your rights, any of those enumerated by the BOR. Now with that said I this there is a certain level of respect decorum and professionalism that active duty service members need to be held to. I think someone saying "I do not agree with - insert politician here - I plan on voting against him/her" but I also think that we all need to give the office of let's say the president a certain level of respect no matter what we think/believe.
(2)
(0)
COL Randall Cudworth
COL Vincent Stoneking is right that you don't give up your freedom of speech, but rather that you have some additional restrictions placed on it by the government (everyone have some restrictions placed on their speech as shown by the SCOTUS rejecting unlimited freedom of speech)
The thing that Active Duty personnel try to steer clear of is violating UCMJ Article 88, the use of contemptuous words against the president, etc (if you want the full list, Google is your friend).
A 1999 Military Law article (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/07-1999.pdf) gives a lot of background for Article 88 and what exactly contemptuous words are. I HIGHLY recommend giving it a read if you are at all curious about what you can and cannot do without possibly running afoul of it.
"Contemptuous words" is very ambiguous, but DA PAM 27-9 (Military Judges' Benchbook) states that contemptuous "means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness." If you look at the Military Law article I referenced above, you'll see that officers have been convicted for "considerably less offensive comments" such as comparing one president to another.
Some quick points regarding Article 88:
- It applies to COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, not enlisted and not warrant officers
- It applies to active duty retired officers as well (since Article 2 states that retired members of a regular component receiving pay are subject to UCMJ)
Understand, just like I stated in another post, there is a world of difference between CAN and SHOULD. While Article 88 prevents officers on an active status from using contemptuous language, does this mean that everyone else is free and clear? Well, you're not going to be convicted (and the fact of the matter is that very few are ever brought up on Article 88 charges unless they make a big splash in the media), but don't be surprised if you get a broken nose from all the doors that start to be slammed in your face from controversial statements.
The thing that Active Duty personnel try to steer clear of is violating UCMJ Article 88, the use of contemptuous words against the president, etc (if you want the full list, Google is your friend).
A 1999 Military Law article (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/07-1999.pdf) gives a lot of background for Article 88 and what exactly contemptuous words are. I HIGHLY recommend giving it a read if you are at all curious about what you can and cannot do without possibly running afoul of it.
"Contemptuous words" is very ambiguous, but DA PAM 27-9 (Military Judges' Benchbook) states that contemptuous "means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness." If you look at the Military Law article I referenced above, you'll see that officers have been convicted for "considerably less offensive comments" such as comparing one president to another.
Some quick points regarding Article 88:
- It applies to COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, not enlisted and not warrant officers
- It applies to active duty retired officers as well (since Article 2 states that retired members of a regular component receiving pay are subject to UCMJ)
Understand, just like I stated in another post, there is a world of difference between CAN and SHOULD. While Article 88 prevents officers on an active status from using contemptuous language, does this mean that everyone else is free and clear? Well, you're not going to be convicted (and the fact of the matter is that very few are ever brought up on Article 88 charges unless they make a big splash in the media), but don't be surprised if you get a broken nose from all the doors that start to be slammed in your face from controversial statements.
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
No member or affiliate of the armed forces should use there position to re-enforce any political agenda or push their beliefs on others. A statement made in uniform to any members of the press, civilians, or even your own subordinates may be seen as the opinion of the military in general. Off post away from the presence of your troops, it may be okay to speak your mind while not in uniform, but even then, it's a touchy subject.
(5)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
I don't see that as happening or as being the issue. The issue is that off-duty soldiers have the right to participate in government as a Citizen using social media or otherwise. As Citizens soldiers have the right to criticize the president or any other government official. They just can not do so in uniform or in any way using their position in the military.
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
I know of a general officer that was prosecuted and forced to retire for this, it is a violation of the UCMJ to do this and you should keep such opinions to places where you have an expectation of privacy(i.e. in your home). On social media or any other public place you can expect to be held accountable for your actions.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Veterans, hell yes, we served and earned the right to freedom of speech, active duty, hell no. That is your commander in chief. Support him until....
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
I can't just post or talk however I want about my boss at my civilian job. I would get fired or forced to resign. But anyone else not related to that company, have at it. Being a veteran I can criticize the commander and chief all I want. But if I was still active duty or a reservist, I would have to follow Article 88 of the UCMJ. <br><br>You have the right to say what you want as a civilian, but as soon as you sign that contract you waive some of your rights, or pay the consequences.<span class="hdrrmn" style="float:left;"><span><h1 id="query_h1" class="query_h1"><br></h1></span></span>
(5)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Actually Sgt O'Donnell, This Article does not/did not apply to you and me. It is specifically directed toward <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">commissioned officers. </span><div><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It reads, </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”</span></div>
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
While it is the free choice of Servicemember to follow a particulr party of thier choosing, one must be VERY careful on what the say, post as a Servicemember. The Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief. Any derogatory statments could be use against a Servicemember as disrespect and punishable under the UCMJ. You have every right to disagree with the policies, but you must be vigilant in your resolve to the Commander in Chief as your supreme Commander of the armed forces.
(5)
(0)
6
5
1
Well, if we didn't have such a worthless, lying, anti-American values dirtbag for a president, then there would probably not be so much negativity hurled his way.
(6)
(1)
5
5
0
Soldier to Soldier, or Airman to Airman in my case, we all bitch from time to time. Never to a superior and never in public. The Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief regardless of who it is. We follow orders because that is our job, that is the oath we all took. I am frankly disgusted with the present Commander in Chief. Yet that is irrelevant. He will soon be replaced by someone else and it is at that point that I have the opportunity to express my will, as does everyone, including active military members.
(5)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
I would also like to add thatit is the right of every service member to Vote thatis the right way to make a statement
(2)
(0)
6
5
1
As the President said if you don't like him or his policies than vote him out.Don't destroy our Democracy by disrespecting Our Countries Highest Office.
(6)
(1)
PFC Peter Bohnhof
Well put Sgt. Davidson, looks like someone needs a lesson in civics & government PFC Serati.<div><br></div>
(2)
(0)
PFC Stephen Eric Serati
We as Veterans can say these things freely but Active Military must refrain from disrespecting their Superior Officers and The Highest Office.This is why politics is left out while serving.
(1)
(0)
SGT James P. Davidson, MSM
<p>Correct to a point, PFC Serati. It must be pointed out at this time that No individual elected to the Office of President, by legal or illegal vote, is a Commissioned Officer, a Warrant Officer or a Non-Commissioned Officer. The service member must refrain while in uniform, while on duty. <br><br>Concerning political speech, and speaking against (versus in support of) the CiC, exceptions to that are made at the local command level. It is not, however, banned nor illegal, so long as the regulations and directives are adhered to:<br></p><p>Look to the regulations set forth by the Department of Defense. </p><p> </p><p>Directive 1344.10, “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty,” which was amended February 19<sup><font size="2">th</font></sup>, 2008 which parts are stated below:</p><p> </p><blockquote><p>“<strong>4.1.1.</strong> A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:</p><p><strong></strong> </p><p><strong>4.1.1.1.</strong> Register, vote, and express a personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces…</p><p><strong></strong> </p><p><strong>4.1.1.3.</strong> Join a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when not in uniform, subject to the restrictions of subparagraph </p><strong><p> </p><p>4.1.2.4.<br></p></strong><p><strong>4.1.2. </strong>A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:</p><p><strong></strong> </p><p><strong>4.1.2.1.</strong> Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof), management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement. Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9.)</p><p><strong></strong> </p><p><strong>4.1.2.4.</strong> Serve in any official capacity with or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan political club.</p><p><strong></strong> </p><p><strong>4.1.2.5.</strong> Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.</p><p><strong></strong> </p><p><strong>4.1.2.6.</strong> Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.”<br><br>Feel free to vote this one down, too, but at least educate yourself, PFC. ;)</p></blockquote>
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Correct. We are a representative democracy within a constitutional republic. It is literally a question on the citizenship test.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
I understand the purpose behind limiting the speech of military service members against the POTUS, but it sure seems like a kick in the ass to me that the very men and women who volunteer to protect the Constitution, including that pesky Bill of Rights where speech is the first right listed that government cannot infringe upon, have their right to free speech so carefully culled.
(5)
(0)
SGT James P. Davidson, MSM
<p>Jeremy, I enlisted twice, and neither contract stated I had to "act in a certain manner"... There was the oath of enlistment, the agreement of an exchange of goods and/or services between me and the government/military, and that's it. Rules and laws to follow come as part of the territory, but there is NO law, regulation or rule that says one cannot speak his or her mind, with few exceptions, as I previously posted.</p><p> </p>
(2)
(0)
SN Ryan Bertalotto
I was in when they started doing military cutbacks..... Alot of us were forced out cause of money
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, remember that little part? The current Resident is a traitor to this nation and it is our DUTY to step in and stop it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google