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
45
45
0
Let's be clear. First, this is an old story. Second, this is NOT a matter of curtailed free speech. I read some of the crap he posted when it happened. He said that he would never follow any of the President's orders, "none!" He referred to him as "Jackass-in-Chief." Could he post these same remarks about his company commander or platoon sergeant without repercussions? No. Could a civilian get away with making such posts about the president of their company without being disciplined and fired? Not a chance.
People need to figure out the difference between:
1) A reasoned, researched argument/point/opinion that will elevate the discourse, make people think, and move toward solutions - regardless of political slant
2) Straw-man dichotomies, name-calling, grandstanding, and party-line parroted talking points from your favorite political blow-hole that only serve to anger, insult, and divide.
This guy was 100% the second. His freedom of speech was not impacted. He can continue to make these remarks all day...but never again as a Marine. I fully support the OTH discharge because his actions were specifically a violation of his oath and intended to incite a lack of order and discipline.
People need to figure out the difference between:
1) A reasoned, researched argument/point/opinion that will elevate the discourse, make people think, and move toward solutions - regardless of political slant
2) Straw-man dichotomies, name-calling, grandstanding, and party-line parroted talking points from your favorite political blow-hole that only serve to anger, insult, and divide.
This guy was 100% the second. His freedom of speech was not impacted. He can continue to make these remarks all day...but never again as a Marine. I fully support the OTH discharge because his actions were specifically a violation of his oath and intended to incite a lack of order and discipline.
(45)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I don't see why this is even a discussion. People equate freedom of speech with freedom from the repercussions of what they said. They are not synonymous. When I would give new enlistees their briefing before they were sworn in at MEPS, I used this former Marine as an example of things you need to keep in mind once you join the military. It really is a simple concept that you should not disparage your boss in the civilian world or a higher ranking individual in the military. Unless your intent is to look for new employment. The Commander in Chief is just that, your boss. You can disagree wholeheartedly with the President, however you shouldn't be disrespectful when you do so.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
To second what CPT Wolfer said above. Prior to enlisting, I've witnessed multiple occasions of people getting fired for bad-mouthing coworkers or supervisors in corporate environments. Each time someone was fired for this, it was completely legal and in no way violated anyone's First Amendment rights. They were perfectly free to go exercise their rights elsewhere. No one wants a toxic or hostile work environment. I even made a fool out of myself once and was fired for insubordination. I was 21 and working at Compaq/HP when I got into an argument about procedure with my supervisor. Like an idiot I went and said something about that individual to a coworker and it got back to the department head. The next day I was looking for new employment. I learned my lesson. I seriously doubt it but hopefully that former Marine learned his.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974).
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Taken from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org: "First Amendment principles do not always apply to public employees in the workplace. For instance, a public employee could be fired for saying, “My superior or co-worker is unqualified and corrupt.” Even though that employee would clearly be expressing a particular viewpoint, the Supreme Court has recognized that “many of the most fundamental maxims of our First Amendment jurisprudence cannot reasonably be applied to speech by government employees.”
First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly,...
First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition
(0)
(0)
15
15
0
I'm certain his COC, at multiple levels, provided him with guidance on what needed to happen and he failed to comply. The OTH normally is a result of multiple failures to comply, so I don't think it's a stretch for the Marine Corps to do this at all.
(15)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Clearly with anything we see in the news, we don't know the whole story--and I'd agree with your assessment that the OTH probably was not the first reaction to such posts.
(2)
(0)
11
11
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could be thinking about a different event - but wasn't this guy told by his command to stop posting this type of stuff and he refused? I thought that that is what escalated it, not the comments themselves.
(11)
(0)
8
8
0
Capt Richard I P.
PO1 (Join to see) You are technically correct. But the same guidelines are appropriate for enlisted SMs, an 88 for an officer can become a 134-and probably other punitive articles not on the top of my head-for anyone else faster than you can say "Courts Martial" A lot of the 88 bait conversations on RP appear to heavily involve veterans, no inherent legal issue, but perhaps a poor example to set for their still active comrades.
(4)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Oh, you won't get any arguement from me Capt Richard I P. as to some individual veterans baiting conversations to elicit improper reactions from SM's - enlisted and officer alike. I have my opinions as to why these particular individual veterans are baiting conversations - but that opinion is better discussed in another thread.
However, while an 88 can be used to discipline an officer, I have never seen an enlisted SM disciplined using that article in the past several decades. Now, that doesn't mean that particular article has not been used - I am simply unaware of it being successfully utilized. There are other methods that can be used to discipline enlisted SM's using this type of commentary.
However, while an 88 can be used to discipline an officer, I have never seen an enlisted SM disciplined using that article in the past several decades. Now, that doesn't mean that particular article has not been used - I am simply unaware of it being successfully utilized. There are other methods that can be used to discipline enlisted SM's using this type of commentary.
(3)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
PO1 (Join to see) I think we're in complete agreement, On both issues. And not that I think you took it this way-but to be clear my comment about some veterans was in no way in reference to you.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Capt Richard I P. I'm pleased you & I agree. However, even if you were including me in the list of offending veterans I would not take any offense. I'm a retired old Salt - there are times I say things that p!$$ people off - enlisted, senior enlisted and officers. As mightily as I try, my non-pc filter fails on occasion, ergo I am not lily white when it comes to irritating commentary.
With all that being said, I appreciate your public display of confidence. I will strive to keep that confidence intact.
With all that being said, I appreciate your public display of confidence. I will strive to keep that confidence intact.
(3)
(0)
7
7
0
7
7
0
I think this dirt bag got what he deserved. I don't condone this type of thing whether its him doing it to the current POTUS or the Marine in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 who criticized Bush. We went into this knowing full well that the civilian president makes policies that effect us. Whether we like it or not we know that the administration changes and that policy decisions change. We gave an oath to follow the orders of the POTUS and if he did not want to do that. It is simple no one forced him to join.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
This is a prime example of the modern age where we are accountable for what we put on line. Although I don't know if an OTH was the way to go, calling out POTUS on line should have been dealt with in some manner. Knowing he is not the first service member to do this, but he is probably the first prosecuted and hopefully it will help others better understand how social media can affect your career.
(6)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
It does make one think for a second about the tone and content of posts on social media. I participated in another RallyPoint discussion about why more senior military leaders don't post on RallyPoint or other social media, and how senior leader social media posts are more institutional or organization messaging than anything else. Clearly, we're responsible for what we post, and clearly there is a line not to be crossed.
(2)
(0)
SSgt David Marks
It's also a prime example of how the kids now days believe they can say or do just about anything and that they should not have any consequences happen to them. This is what happens when kids are raised with no discipline in their lives. This marine I guarantee was coincided and/written up several times before being discharged. I for one do not feel sorry for him. The Corp was right in the discharge.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
You make your bed, you sleep in it. The Marine acknowledged his mistake in wording (probably posted in the heat of the moment). That said, I will almost guarantee we are not seeing the whole picture here. This seems to be awfully slim evidence to justify an OTH. Wonder what his counseling packet looked like.
(3)
(0)
(0)
(1)
CDR Mike Kovack
Anytime you publicly disparage your superiors in the chain of command you should be held accountable period.
(3)
(0)
SSG John Erny
CDR Mike Kovack, Sir,
I agree with you, but was pointing out to people not to do that very thing lest they get booted. A veteran or retired service member does not have the same anvil hanging over there head. Look at all of the retired field graded offices on the news throwing in their two cents, most of it against the current administration. I do not advocate disparaging comments about those who serve, have served or the government. Therefore, we must choose our words wisely to express decent.
I agree with you, but was pointing out to people not to do that very thing lest they get booted. A veteran or retired service member does not have the same anvil hanging over there head. Look at all of the retired field graded offices on the news throwing in their two cents, most of it against the current administration. I do not advocate disparaging comments about those who serve, have served or the government. Therefore, we must choose our words wisely to express decent.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I think they were right in discharging him but i think other than honorable was a stretch. We all know we were not allowed to be outwardly critical of the President. And im pretty sure it was not a single post that did him in. He was more then likely told to take it down.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
As MAJ (Join to see) notes below, there's likely more to the story on the OTH than the ABC News article discusses. We all know adjudicating an OTH discharge requires a high-level of involvement from the chain of command--so I'd agree that it wasn't likely just a single Facebook post that led to the OTH.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
My guess is that he probably brought his opinion into the work place and was told to shut his mouth. He was probably warned several times over it, and chose to shout from the roof tops instead. Also it is possible he had other behavioral issues as well. In my experience when people get an OTH discharge it has been due to several different issues that just keep piling up to the point where the say we are done with you.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
This is all so very common and still occurs people sit in deface bad mouthing the President and calling him names. But I tell that I feel as a service member you should refrain from those actions because the president is still in the chain of command , highest ranking officer in the military, so therefore we should show respect even if we don't believe in some of his choices. I actually deleted someone off my FB for this very recently he was a former soldier.
(2)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
SGT Dixon, the last thing you want is someone else on your FB is say derespectful things about someone in your CoC and you are held responsible or someone believes you said it or you support it.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google