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

COL Charles Williams

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.