What is acceptable, with regards to comments on social media, about the President, Elected Officials, or Candidates?

2015-03-25T00:52:40-04:00

On various social media sites (RP included) I see a lot, of what I consider, inappropriate comments about our president, other elected/appointed officials, and even potential candidates. I fully understand inappropriate is a matter of opinion. I did not vote for our president, nor am I a fan, but I do respect the office he holds. I also respect the positions of the rest of the elected officials who are front and center.

I am interested in your thoughts on what is in play, and what is not, and do you think things change when you retire? We are all entitled to free speech, but where does that end, and where have we crossed the line?

I am a retired Officer, and still believe I should abide by the same rules I was mandated to on active duty; but, I could be way off base.

This is what I know:

1. It is pretty clear for Officers: Art 88 of UCMJ (Contempt Toward Officials) specifically prohibits: 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.

2. It is less clear for NCOs/Soldiers; Gray would be correct too. They are governed by ART 134 (The General Article) perhaps under (Disloyal statements (U.C.M.J. Article 134)) or (Indecent language (U.C.M.J. Article 134)).

3. And, I believe we should always treat everyone the way we want to be treated.

These are some references:

UCMJ:

http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-10-punitive-articles/888-article-88-contempt-toward-officials

http://militaryadvocate.com/punitive-ucmj-articles/
FREE SPEECH IN THE MILITARY: http://nlgmltf.org/leaflets/GI_Rights_free_speech.html

Social media misuse punishable under UCMJ: http://www.army.mil/article/73367/

SFC Mark Merino CPT Aaron Kletzing Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS LTC Yinon Weiss CSM Michael J. Uhlig TSgt Hunter Logan GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad SGT Private RallyPoint Member CW5 Private RallyPoint Member COL Jean (John) F. B. TSgt Joshua Copeland SGT Private RallyPoint Member SGT Jim Z. LCDR Jaron Matlow Capt Christopher Mueller SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SMSgt Minister Gerald A. Thomas SFC William Swartz Jr SGT William Howell Col Michael Grubbs, Ph.D., LMFT-S Col Joseph Lenertz PO2 William Allen Crowder ; Cpl Anthony Pearson CSM Private RallyPoint Member ; MAJ Private RallyPoint Member SSG Robert Burns

888. ARTICLE 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS « UCMJ – United States Code of Military Justice

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.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 2:41 AM

2015-03-25T02:41:39-04:00

Sir - I agree with you. I have worked for five Commanders in Chiefs and honestly I can say that I disagreed with a lot of things all of them did. Below is my take

Active duty/Guard/Reserve - You need to respect the Chain of Command and those mentioned above are the top of the chain. Regardless of what your personal feelings are you took an oath to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me".

Retired/Veteran - Thank you for your service! Personally, I think that you should conduct yourself in the same manner as those above but, you are a private citizen and the UCMJ does not apply. You have the full protection of the 1st Amendment and it is your right to exercise it.

RallyPoint - I do not think it is a good idea for anyone on this site to comment with disparaging or disrespectful/demeaning words about the POTUS. Everyone has their own beliefs and a good heated debate is great, when it gets out of hand it is unprofessional, regardless of your military status.

Good post sir!

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 25 at 2015 6:31 AM

2015-03-25T06:31:46-04:00

COL Charles Williams . I would say your post is pretty much spot on except that as a retired officer you feel you should abide by the same rules as if you were on active duty. You served your country, you should speak your mind, period. You can always do that politely and professionally but you are under no obligation to bite your tongue.

The tightrope with the chain of command is not crossing the line into blind obedience. Our oath is to the Constitution of the U.S. and to follow orders from those appointed over us including the president. That would be until those orders become unlawful, then you have a conflict. The conflict should be resolved by examining the oath and what it is actually an oath to support and defend.

Response by SSG Paul Lanciault made Mar 25 at 2015 6:58 AM

2015-03-25T06:58:57-04:00

If we held everyone to the letter of the UCMJ our stockade would be standing room only. The UCMJ, not the congress says this. If we knew of all the rules and regs before we enlisted, many of us would have had second thoughts. Just as with the uniform question a short while back, you have to know when, where, why, and how to apply the rules and regs. In the civilian world some labor organizations have a thing called past practice, in this case if the military was so concerned, they should have been applying the rule a long time ago.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 25 at 2015 7:21 AM

2015-03-25T07:21:04-04:00

Simply put, "Fighting Words."

I won't put anything here about ANYONE, whether it's the President, a PFC, or yourself COL Charles Williams that I am not willing to say to their face. If I say something out of line, and someone takes a swing at me for it... there is the question of me "inciting a riot" so to speak.

We're a civilized society, and should conduct ourselves as such.

That doesn't mean we can't say we disagree, or tell people they are wrong, or that we do not like policy, politicians, or even a specific person... but both Tact and Bearing are leadership traits. Completely ignoring the punitive sections of the UCMJ, and focusing solely on the positive virtues we attempt to instill, a man should NEVER attempt to tear down another man. That's not what leaders do.

If an official is so bad that he requires comments of that nature, we must divert it to the issue, not the person. This brings us out of the realm of Ad Hominem (to the man) attacks, which are a classic logical fallacy. Just because we don't like someone, doesn't mean they can't have good ideas, just like bad ideas can't come from good sources.

As leaders, we must be critical thinkers first. We must also set the example for our juniors and those still in service. This doesn't mean we cannot speak our minds, just that we must be cautious about how we address subjects. When asked what we think about X, we cannot respond with emotion or simply "it stinks," it must instead be logic, and explanations of concerns, issues, and counter examples. If there are known solutions present them, if there are not, acknowledge them.

In regards to the current President, he was elected. Though I disagree with much of his policy, I personally try to find out why I disagree with it. Is it a gut reaction, formed from the fact that I haven't liked his previous policies? Is it that is particular issue is one close to me? So on and so forth. I have to assess each on its merits, then on the whole.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 7:32 AM

2015-03-25T07:32:51-04:00

I feel that enforcement of Article 88 is certainly something that has fallen out of practice, and possibly rightly so, but the fact that it still exists opens up possibility for reproach.

Maybe you say something critical about POTUS or Senior leaders that 99% of the time will fly but that 1% there may be an individual out there wants to stick it to you and due to Article 88 they actually have the basis for it. Its just a risk I would prefer not to take.

I try and air on the side of safety and just never discuss politics in a work environment as I feel nothing more quickly drives a wedge of contention between people. Not to mention I was raised to not discuss politics, money etc in polite conversation, so there's always that.

Response by MSgt Jamie Lyons made Mar 25 at 2015 8:46 AM

2015-03-25T08:46:07-04:00

Col Charles Williams thank you for your service and leadership in highlighting this issue. I have read comments left by some SM's and often wondered if they might be crossing the line. As a retired veteran I understand I am no longer held to the UCMJ boundries I were while serving, but like you I respect the office of the President of the United States. I too do not like current administration and have held back many comments out of said respect.

With that said I do believe people have the right to their opinions. As they say everyone's opinion are like buttholes... I usually tend to ignore comments without logical solutions. Some members on here often leave comments that are well thought out and I will usually respond in kind to those comments. However, personal attacks on the President and not his policies usually get no attention from me. SM's should carefully tred around personal attacks and instead stick to conversations about policies and always with professionalism. Other SM's should squash any trash talking or personal attacks on the President when appropriate.

I hope the people here can keep this format professional and respectful, otherwise wouldn't it be just another Facebook platform???

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 25 at 2015 8:56 AM

2015-03-25T08:56:18-04:00

I feel that as a retiree my thoughts and opinions concerning any and all elected officials are just that, mine and do not and not fall under UCMJ. I have lived by and preached one simple rule to my Soldiers when I served, "As long as you work for the "man", do not talk bad of the "man"." We all gripe and moan at times about this unit or that duty, etc., but while wearing the uniform of the armed forces one should strive to steer clear of any dialogue that is overly critical of, disrespectful to or merely over the top when it comes to POTUS. As for the clowns in both houses of Congress, well I do not feel the same as they are not the Commander-in-Chief and have brought about most of the derision that they receive.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 8:57 AM

2015-03-25T08:57:50-04:00

The general things that I read here is that we all have freedom of speech, loyalties to the country and not the people, UCMJ has different standards.

Another aspect to think about this is to remember that the elected officials, especially the President, is apart of our chain of command. While we've all had Officers and NCO's that we have not respected, it has always been in our best interest to keep that discontent to ourselves or relatively private. Disrespect breaks down loyalty at all levels and fosters a negative working environment, even if the person in question may never be seen.

Social media has only made this worse but allowing our voice to be heard at a far greater scale that can convince others in a parallel chain to sway towards our approach of thinking. A command that allows this type of attitude is a command where the junior personnel have the ability to control the command's power through mob mentality, which breaks down order and discipline.

While we serve, we have every interest to these feelings to ourselves. When you are out, a lot more freedoms are allotted since you no longer report to anyone on these issues, but those who no longer serve are more likely to be the ambassadors to those who never serve because they'll have more interactions with the population than those who continue training and deploying with their units.

Wait till that individual is no longer in office and you are no longer in service to speak your mind about them. Until then, you're not doing anyone any justice.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 25 at 2015 9:48 AM

2015-03-25T09:48:43-04:00

Sir,

I feel it is without our right to criticize opinions or actions taken by an elected official as long as we show them the respect their position deserves. I feel negatively about nearly every elected position and official we have in this country, but that does not make me want to ignore legal orders or insult them directly.

When a direct insult through a mocking nickname or an insult of the position appears, it is wildly inappropriate and unprofessional, no matter how you feel about the individual.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 10:27 AM

2015-03-25T10:27:23-04:00

If you are active duty, I suggest you do not make derogatory remarks about your POTUS or anyone else in your command structure online.

Do I think it's right? No I really don't. I mean, the people would understand more about what we, the military, feel about what's going on. Heck, we didn't know what happened on the ground in Benghazi until the gag order was lifted. What do these officials have to hide?? If they were in the up and up, nothing. (I understand all politicians are dirty, btw)

I don't look at a service member expressing his/her frustration as a being disrespectful.

I believe in ones freedom of speech, even if I may absolutely, 100% disagree with it.

I really think it is just added strain on the Service Member to have to watch what you say and how you say things about your Commander in Chief or the Vice. If it isn't a direct threat, I think it should be taken at what it really is... Just an opinion.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Mar 25 at 2015 11:14 AM

2015-03-25T11:14:24-04:00

I believe in the 1st Amendment. Everyone has a right to say their opinion, but not in uniform or giving the impression that you represent a group when you state your opinion. Say it out of uniform respectfully as if you were saying it to the person. Never use your rank or title and qualify that this is your personal opinion and that you are not speaking for or representing any group or organization. Just my opinion respectively!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 11:27 AM

2015-03-25T11:27:00-04:00

COL Charles Williams, Sir, excellent question. I agree with your assessment. Though I think this is a dynamic that those subject to the UCMJ have long grappled with, the added platform of social media has served to give every man and woman a medium by which their thoughts, quips, quotes, and cracks; once reserved for exclusively for the ears of select like-minded and trusted peers, now have the potential to go viral overnight, reaching tens of millions of viewers and all under 140 characters or less! Add to that the false sense of anonymity folks feel as they pound away on their keyboards from the comforts of home, and this recipe for potential career disaster compounds itself 100 fold.

As I assess our current political climate Sir, the state of our Army at present, contemporary popular cultural influences on American society, and how this in turn is influencing and shaping the Army of today and the immediate future, I confess that it is with the greatest of difficulty that I continue to bite my tongue. I, along with many of my peers, attend the Town Halls, the Listening Sessions, the Way Ahead Briefings, and answer survey after survey, yet our concerns fall on deaf ears at the Pentagon-level. We are concerned with our viability as an effective combat force; yet the only messages we're receiving back in reply are do more with less, and here's some more mandatory training to conduct and track each month. In short, Sir, we continue to be utilized more for social experimentation it seems than our primary mission!

So, yes, as you can see Sir, I do believe that not only is it possible for an Officer to speak up on matters of Presidential politics, so long as they remain focused on POLICY, as I just demonstrated, and do not become PERSONAL or insulting attacks or assassinations of character, as those behaviors fall to the level of Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Lady or Gentleman. For example, the repeated sport of some who love to insist that the POTUS must be a "secret Muslim" fall into this category.

As far as retirees go, in my personal opinion, they have served their time, and have more than earned their rights to sound off. I temper that however, with these words of caution. If you go about your community openly embracing your status as a military retiree, the general public will still expect the same level of professionalism from you as they would if you were still serving. When you fail to deliver that in the eyes of the general public, you are actually hurting us all. So, if you want to become a hardcore rightwing reactionary, please do us all a favor first and disassociate yourself from your service career. The same holds if you want to veer left, move to the Pacific Northwest and spike trees to injure and maim loggers to save a few dozen owls. We collectively thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Veterans, I thank you all for your service! You really have earned the right to fully exercise and embrace each and every right afforded to you under our Constitution and Bill of Rights. But I challenge each and everyone of you to become acquainted with that document, it's contents, and what they truly mean. Far too many of you on this and other forums, seem to believe that serving as it's guardian makes you a scholar on it; and this can lead to humorous, but needlessly embarrassing outcomes. Don't just speak out! Anyone can do that! Separate yourselves from the masses of oxygen thieves and armchair intellectuals, and actually say something of substance! Learn and know your candidates. Know your Party and it's platform issues. Do these really align with your beliefs and values? If not, what have you been doing?

Final word on candidates for office: Sir, I believe we should treat all people with basic decency and respect. With that said, I also believe that we can be far more critical of a candidate and their track record while they are in the arena because at this point, they are a commodity and we are the consumer. They want us to buy a product that will last us and serve us well in all situations and circumstances for a minimum of 4 years, we are well within our rights to question and test the mettle of this commodity that wants our vote. Whereas if they are an officeholder they have put those duties largely off to the side, this effectively creates a unique exception-to-policy situation in the area of Article 88.

Homework: Veterans (and anyone else) Hillsdale College in Michigan offers a FREE online course on the Constitution! I have taken it, it is a great course! Here's the link!

http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution-101-signup/

Constitution 101 | Hillsdale College

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Mar 25 at 2015 11:46 AM

2015-03-25T11:46:01-04:00

While it is true that military retirees are still subject to the UCMJ, they have much more latitude than active duty officers as far as Art 88, UCMJ.

There have been several papers/studies about this over the years and this topic has been discussed numerous times on RallyPoint. I quoted an official source in responding to one such post and I'll try to find it, however, the gist of the discussion was that, to charge/convict a military retiree for "contempt toward officials" the required elements of proof would have to include evidence that such contempt had a significant adverse impact on discipline and morale. Much easier to do with an active duty officer, but next to impossible with a retiree. There have been no prosecutions of military retirees for this offense and there probably never will be.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2015 11:53 AM

2015-03-25T11:53:31-04:00

As members of the military I believe we give up a certain amount of our freedom of speech when we sign the contract. I don't see a problem with disagreeing with or even disliking our president and elected officials but to totally bash the Commander in Cheif (like him or not that's what he is) on social media for all to see the way I have seen many service members do is, at best, unprofessional. Whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike the current president, the office itself should be afforded a certain level of respect especially from members of our military.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 25 at 2015 2:13 PM

2015-03-25T14:13:18-04:00

only applies to commissioned officers
So when I was in, I CHOSE to not make remarks that some would deem unprofessional all while still voicing my personal opinion.

Now that I'm out I can freely say... It any way want.... I still mostly "choose " to do so in a professional way, just so the words used do not distract from the content.

The other issue is, many justifiers and apologist for Oboma will claim anything said that does not praise or support him is wrong and unprofessional.
To them I respond
PISSOFF
Disagreement is not dissension speaking the truth is not disrespectful

Response by SFC Gary Comstock made Mar 25 at 2015 4:42 PM

2015-03-25T16:42:25-04:00

I have respected all the president's that have been in office except this one. I could not find it in my heart to since he does not respect the office he holds. I do believe everyone has the right to express their opinions. But if you are still in the military it must be done with tact.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 25 at 2015 10:28 PM

2015-03-25T22:28:48-04:00

Thank you all for your comments and perspectives! I will answer each personally ASAP!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 12:11 AM

2015-03-26T00:11:30-04:00

I think that anyone who served should be respectful in their comments and offer informed and educated, but respectful disagreements to those that they disagree with. I didn't vote for our current CIC but I will not ever hesitate to call people out for stooping to the low name calling BS that many civilians are guilty of. There is no excuse for ignorance when you clearly have the whole of the internet at your fingertips.

Response by SGT William Howell made Mar 26 at 2015 9:25 AM

2015-03-26T09:25:03-04:00

Sir,

My take is this. I am not longer in military service and I have the right to express my opinions about politicians. I have made comments on RP about Jimmy Carter and I have deep feelings over how he treated the military and their families during his term.

Others on RP are currently serving and they do not have the right to defend their opinion if it differs from mine. It is like fighting someone with both hands tied behind their back. You can do it, but where is the sport in that.

So I am going to refrain from talking about about politicians out of respect for other members here on RP that are active duty.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 26 at 2015 3:11 PM

2015-03-26T15:11:36-04:00

I think the biggest issue comes when people start attacking the President, rather than keeping it to a disagreement with policy. Policy can and should be discussed, for every official. But when that turns into personal attacks like "Obama is the worst president" or "Obama hates America" or "F**k Obama", that is when people have gone too far. We should be capable of debating certain policies, while simultaneously respecting both the office of the POTUS as well as the fact that the current sitting president is who the American people chose. The bile between parties really needs to end, it only serves to divide America, and a house divided amongst itself, cannot stand.

Response by SGT Chris Reese made Mar 26 at 2015 11:48 PM

2015-03-26T23:48:30-04:00

Sir, I agree with you. In the terms of service for most all social networking sites it specifically talks about defamation toward persons of any statute. For this site is section 7, I believe, and is not appropriate behavior. Nor is it in my personal opinion. As humans, we all judge each other for various reasons. This however, should be kept to yourself. We all,on this site anyways, swore in to the Armed Services, which in my mind anyways means that whether active or not still should obey and respect our elected leaders no matter our personal opinions of that person.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 12:46 AM

2015-03-27T00:46:30-04:00

I am probably going to be in he minority on this and that is fine with me. I am no longer in the military and the UCMJ does not apply to me any longer, thank god, because several of our constitutional rights are sacrificed when we entered into service.

I have a constitutionally protected right to say exactly what I want now. I have no problem exercising said right. Things to consider are class and tact. Not to mention, things said on social media can and do come back to haunt us in one way or another. Especially in our current society. I would say nothing in a public forum which could potentially come back and cause the loss or potential loss of a job.

For those on active duty, in reserve or guard status, you better keep your mouth shut. There are plenty of people who would love to destroy your short or long career for disparaging the POTUS or elected officials. your group most certainly does not have a right to free speech regardless of what you are told.

For Retired/veterans, you are free to say whatever you choose, but be mindful of your audience. This is a military based website and some people are extremely black and white in their beliefs. We live in a grey world, it took me years to rid myself of rigid, black and white military thinking. In the military I was ordered to do things I did not agree with but I had no choice. I signed the line. I gave up certain rights and I knew that. It was no different than when I worked for the government. I kept my mouth shut about my personal political beliefs. If I had stated my beliefs openly, there is no doubt I would have been disciplined and drummed out of service regardless of my excellent record, accomplishments and achievements.

As a veteran, I have done my time, if anything we have earned the right more so than any other group in the social strata to speak our mind about issues like this. I choose to remain tactful and show a modicum of class. My wife, family and friends know my personal beliefs very well. Orrrrr, learn how to eviscerate a person verbally but increasing your personal vocabulary. It is a lot of fun when you use the dictionary to get your point across or express your personal feelings and at the same time making some people look those words up in a dictionary in order to translate your opinion into layspeak.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2015 1:04 AM

2015-03-27T01:04:39-04:00

I believe we are in a time when people supporting the government wishes to limit speech. I would like for you to go to the dates of these rules (if you will) and see that the date is 2010. That certainly does not come from Conservatives though more liberal Republicans may be involved as well.

Make no mistake, this is an organized effort to shut up the military and we see what sequestration has done and it has hurt the military. The dates are no coincidence and I did not see Presidents Bush or Clinton push it this hard. In two years we will have a new administration and one that is consonant and respectful of all the military.