Posted on Nov 23, 2014
Marine gets other than honorable discharge for anti-Obama Facebook postings
17.5K
290
87
14
14
0
Think the content of online posts is harmless?
Is the Marine Corps right to discharge this Marine for his anti-Obama Facebook posts?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/marine-sgt-gary-stein-honorable-discharge-anti-obama/story?id=16216279
Is the Marine Corps right to discharge this Marine for his anti-Obama Facebook posts?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/marine-sgt-gary-stein-honorable-discharge-anti-obama/story?id=16216279
Posted in these groups: 
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 32
2
2
0
Unfortunately a young career is ended and all because "Letting your alligator mouth override that your hummingbird ass" in the wrong arena ! Social media isn't the place to vent, all that is done off line period. Was the Marine Corp to harsh well we don't have all the facts, presented in front of us and again not a social media venue. It's a shame to see this young man lose his opportunity to continue to serve, but this is what happens when you communicate things out of frustration and anger????
Hey hope the young man has the ability to go too college and become a part of the solution, for we need young blood in the right places not in the all bar hotel network........
Hey hope the young man has the ability to go too college and become a part of the solution, for we need young blood in the right places not in the all bar hotel network........
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
You are not to do or say anything negative towards the Commander and chief in the military and I feel the correct action was taken here.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
I think he missed the part of the oath that says "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States of America". So that being said, I think it was very necessary to discipline him.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
People these days do not seem to realize that we still have on the books (since John Adams and the Anti-sedition Act) laws affecting government civilians and military personnel about "disloyal" statements about the President/Commander in Chief. Rules affecting civilians involve while in a gov building; rules involving military involve UCMJ regarding "disparaging remarks" and a whole array of actions "contrary to good order and discipline" or that may "bring discredit to the service" and so on.
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
SGM (Join to see), I think you will find any civilian laws regarding "disloyal" statements -- especially in government buildings and on government property -- to be severely constrained under the First Amendment, just as laws against sedition require overt acts instead of mere speech.
The courts have a track record of recognizing that, when it comes to petitioning "the Government for a redress of grievances", one man's petition is another man's sedition.
The courts have a track record of recognizing that, when it comes to petitioning "the Government for a redress of grievances", one man's petition is another man's sedition.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
1LT Clardy--thank you for an opportunity to bring our attention to limits on freedom of speech. Contrary to what most people may think, Freedom of Speech does have many restrictions.
The government has the authority to make reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of certain speech activities if there is a compelling reason to do so.
(1) Endicott Interconnect Technologies, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (July 14, 2006), where he United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that unquestionably detrimentally disloyal" statements made by an employee regarding his employer are not protected activities under section 7 of the federal National Labor elations Act ("NLRA"). The Court held that the NLRB "misapplied the second part of the test" by "seemingly ignoring that "White's communications were unquestionably detrimentally disloyal"...
There are a surprising number of laws that limit speech. Note that in our earlier post, by "Civilian" we mean Federal Employee Civilians.
(2) Title 18 USC makes it a Class D Felony to make certain comments, such as threats, about the President, and a Class C Felony for similar comments about other officials.... (3) Supreme Court makes a distinction between an Open and Closed Forum. Speech can be more controlled in a Closed Forum. Not every property owned by the government is a traditional public forum. For example, a government office building may keep out persons not conducting business there, so that employees are able to do their work. The degree of public access depends on the type of building and the history of past use at the particular building. In some circumstances, government property that is not a traditional public forum might have been designated as a type of limited public forum. he Supreme Court has ruled that no one has a right to protest on military bases even if the person is a member of the military. Most federal property, however, is less restricted. There are no regulations prohibiting free speech activities at post offices, except for partisan political activity. In addition, flyers or handbills cannot be posted on postal property.
(4) Federal buildings and installations have a unique status--for example, we cannot distribute literature or other communications without approvals that might "be contrary to good order" . (5) The Hatch Act is another example of restrictive speech among federal employees , as is a Federal installation where speech is restricted. While the uniformed military face all manner of restrictions on their speech, all federal employees—and many state government employees whose positions are funded by the federal government—are covered under the Hatch Act. Most of them, including most DoD civilians, are Less Restricted Employees and given wide berth in their political expression so long as it’s done on their own time--not on gov property-- and there’s no reasonable basis to conclude that they’re speaking in their official capacity. Others, including employees of most intelligence and law enforcement agencies and all Senior Executive Service employees, are Further Restricted Employees who face quite onerous restrictions on their activity and can’t donate to campaigns or parties, wear bumper stickers, comment on a blog, or even forward emails or social media postings that advocate for a party or candidate. (6) The Sedition Act was reworked in 1918 and repealed in 1920. However, portions of it live on in the Espionage Act. (7) The Supreme Court upheld the Espionage Act, notably in (Eugene) Debs v. United States. A five-time socialist presidential candidate, he served prison time for opposing militarism and America's WW I entry. (8) In 1968, the Warren Court disallowed draft card burning on grounds it would disrupt the "smooth and efficient functioning" of American recruitment. Other expressions of protest were later allowed. More briefly stated: The right of free expression is not an absolute right to express ourselves at any time, in any place, in any manner. Like it or not, government can place reasonable restrictions on the manner in which we express ourselves but not on the message we express...Ah, but there are caveats on that too...
It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal speech. It is legal to demonstrate against draft registration, but it is illegal to knowingly counsel an individual to evade registration. It is legal to picket a store, but it is illegal to block entry to the store. It is legal to preach that our form of government is wrong, but it may be illegal to directly encourage a crowd to storm the White House. Broadly speaking, we are free to communicate our ideas but not to encourage immediate crimes.If you are instructed not to speak, demonstrate, or engage in some other free speech activity — whether by a law, a police officer, or other government official — you should know that continuing to engage in the activity may result in criminal charges. The police order may later be tossed out of court, but you would still have gone through the hassle of being charged. Please alert the ACLU if you believe an official order has unreasonably restricted your right to protest.
Failure to obey a police officer may result in arrest under one of the following criminal offenses:
Disorderly Conduct(RCW 9A.84.030)
Failure to Disperse(RCW 9A.8A4.020)
Resisting Arrest(RCW 9A.76.040)
Interference, obstruction of any court, building, or residence(RCW 9.27.015)
Trespass(RCW 9A.52.070; RCW 9A.52.080)
Disturbing school, school activities, or meetings(RCW 28A.87.060)
The government has the authority to make reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of certain speech activities if there is a compelling reason to do so.
(1) Endicott Interconnect Technologies, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (July 14, 2006), where he United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that unquestionably detrimentally disloyal" statements made by an employee regarding his employer are not protected activities under section 7 of the federal National Labor elations Act ("NLRA"). The Court held that the NLRB "misapplied the second part of the test" by "seemingly ignoring that "White's communications were unquestionably detrimentally disloyal"...
There are a surprising number of laws that limit speech. Note that in our earlier post, by "Civilian" we mean Federal Employee Civilians.
(2) Title 18 USC makes it a Class D Felony to make certain comments, such as threats, about the President, and a Class C Felony for similar comments about other officials.... (3) Supreme Court makes a distinction between an Open and Closed Forum. Speech can be more controlled in a Closed Forum. Not every property owned by the government is a traditional public forum. For example, a government office building may keep out persons not conducting business there, so that employees are able to do their work. The degree of public access depends on the type of building and the history of past use at the particular building. In some circumstances, government property that is not a traditional public forum might have been designated as a type of limited public forum. he Supreme Court has ruled that no one has a right to protest on military bases even if the person is a member of the military. Most federal property, however, is less restricted. There are no regulations prohibiting free speech activities at post offices, except for partisan political activity. In addition, flyers or handbills cannot be posted on postal property.
(4) Federal buildings and installations have a unique status--for example, we cannot distribute literature or other communications without approvals that might "be contrary to good order" . (5) The Hatch Act is another example of restrictive speech among federal employees , as is a Federal installation where speech is restricted. While the uniformed military face all manner of restrictions on their speech, all federal employees—and many state government employees whose positions are funded by the federal government—are covered under the Hatch Act. Most of them, including most DoD civilians, are Less Restricted Employees and given wide berth in their political expression so long as it’s done on their own time--not on gov property-- and there’s no reasonable basis to conclude that they’re speaking in their official capacity. Others, including employees of most intelligence and law enforcement agencies and all Senior Executive Service employees, are Further Restricted Employees who face quite onerous restrictions on their activity and can’t donate to campaigns or parties, wear bumper stickers, comment on a blog, or even forward emails or social media postings that advocate for a party or candidate. (6) The Sedition Act was reworked in 1918 and repealed in 1920. However, portions of it live on in the Espionage Act. (7) The Supreme Court upheld the Espionage Act, notably in (Eugene) Debs v. United States. A five-time socialist presidential candidate, he served prison time for opposing militarism and America's WW I entry. (8) In 1968, the Warren Court disallowed draft card burning on grounds it would disrupt the "smooth and efficient functioning" of American recruitment. Other expressions of protest were later allowed. More briefly stated: The right of free expression is not an absolute right to express ourselves at any time, in any place, in any manner. Like it or not, government can place reasonable restrictions on the manner in which we express ourselves but not on the message we express...Ah, but there are caveats on that too...
It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal speech. It is legal to demonstrate against draft registration, but it is illegal to knowingly counsel an individual to evade registration. It is legal to picket a store, but it is illegal to block entry to the store. It is legal to preach that our form of government is wrong, but it may be illegal to directly encourage a crowd to storm the White House. Broadly speaking, we are free to communicate our ideas but not to encourage immediate crimes.If you are instructed not to speak, demonstrate, or engage in some other free speech activity — whether by a law, a police officer, or other government official — you should know that continuing to engage in the activity may result in criminal charges. The police order may later be tossed out of court, but you would still have gone through the hassle of being charged. Please alert the ACLU if you believe an official order has unreasonably restricted your right to protest.
Failure to obey a police officer may result in arrest under one of the following criminal offenses:
Disorderly Conduct(RCW 9A.84.030)
Failure to Disperse(RCW 9A.8A4.020)
Resisting Arrest(RCW 9A.76.040)
Interference, obstruction of any court, building, or residence(RCW 9.27.015)
Trespass(RCW 9A.52.070; RCW 9A.52.080)
Disturbing school, school activities, or meetings(RCW 28A.87.060)
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Unfortunately we are sworn to obey the orders (if they are lawful) of all officers appointed over us and the President of the United States whether or not he is eligible to hold the office or not. I do understand the Marine's consternation because of all the negative things going on in America, but the office of the President needs to be respected even if the President does not always warrant the respect. One day (hopefully soon) we will get elected officials who represent our country in a manner that will evoke loyalty from Americans that serve.
Respectfully,
Steve
Respectfully,
Steve
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Well, what he said had no discernable ambiguity in it. :-) It was posted on a questionable page and the aye, aye, ayes pretty much have it that this is not a 1st amendment argument. PO1 (Join to see) hits it right on the head that this young lad had to have received both guidance and discipline prior to this going OTH discharge.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Don't know but it is against regulation to say, act, write dis-respective fully to superior officers and the POTUS.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google