Posted on Mar 25, 2015
What is acceptable, with regards to comments on social media, about the President, Elected Officials, or Candidates?
12.8K
91
40
8
8
0
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 (Join to see) CW5 (Join to see) COL Jean (John) F. B. TSgt Joshua Copeland SGT (Join to see) 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 (Join to see) ; MAJ (Join to see) SSG Robert Burns
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 (Join to see) CW5 (Join to see) COL Jean (John) F. B. TSgt Joshua Copeland SGT (Join to see) 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 (Join to see) ; MAJ (Join to see) SSG Robert Burns
Social Media
Freedom of Speech
Respect
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 23
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT Chris Reese
Thank you COL Charles Williams both for your service and this thread. It really saddens me to know that people, SM's especially, disrespect our leaders as they do, especially our Commander-in-Chief.
(1)
(0)
SGT Chris Reese
My military leadership as well as my family taught me that opions should be kept to yourself unless asked for and even then to remember "Thumper" from Bambi "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". This simple saying could drastically impact the world in a way of supporting peace.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
SGT William Howell I would recommend you stay the course. Your opinion matters as much as mine. I was just wanting some perspective. I would continue saying what you feel.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
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
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
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Charles Williams
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SGT Mick F. Col Michael Grubbs, Ph.D., LMFT-S
I have seen that paper before and it is well written. I will say it again, however, the rules for military retirees are much different when it comes to contempt toward officials. One would have to show a clear and present detrimental impact on the morale and discipline of the troops, and, as with other offenses, the prosecutor would probably also have to show that was the intent of the accused.. Not likely that most (if any) retirees would have that impact.
The fact is that, while it may be technically possible to charge a retiree with a violation of Art 88, it is very highly unlikely and the chances of getting a conviction more unlikely yet.
I have seen that paper before and it is well written. I will say it again, however, the rules for military retirees are much different when it comes to contempt toward officials. One would have to show a clear and present detrimental impact on the morale and discipline of the troops, and, as with other offenses, the prosecutor would probably also have to show that was the intent of the accused.. Not likely that most (if any) retirees would have that impact.
The fact is that, while it may be technically possible to charge a retiree with a violation of Art 88, it is very highly unlikely and the chances of getting a conviction more unlikely yet.
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
Col Michael Grubbs, Ph.D., LMFT-S
I found and quoted such a document in a previous discussion several months ago. Will need to do some additional research to find it again. I am on business travel and will have some time to look for it later in the week.
I found and quoted such a document in a previous discussion several months ago. Will need to do some additional research to find it again. I am on business travel and will have some time to look for it later in the week.
(1)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
Thank you COL Jean (John) F. B. ! I am just getting started here in RP, so my historical perspective is short here. Thank you Col Michael Grubbs, Ph.D., LMFT-S
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google