Why do we not charge Service Members who post negative things about the Commander-in-Chief on social media?

2016-03-19T06:24:25-04:00

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2016 6:24 AM

2016-03-19T06:24:49-04:00

Frankly I am tired of seeing it.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2016 6:41 AM

2016-03-19T06:41:47-04:00

Freedom of Speech.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2016 7:11 AM

2016-03-19T07:11:15-04:00

Because it would open some ugly questions about the administration in a very public forum. Better to leave it as a question then an adjudicated fact.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Mar 19 at 2016 7:13 AM

2016-03-19T07:13:41-04:00

Many have found out the hard way in the civilian world posting bad or negative opinions about their boss on FB is not a real good idea, even in these times of free speech. No employer no matter how generous can sit by and allow himself and the company to be hit with snarky remarks on social media made by his/her employees. While a person's speech is free people are still accountable in some fashion or another for what they say. The services seem to be pretty generous in what they will take from SMs before putting a foot down. Ask Gen McChrystal about free speech in front of the press.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 19 at 2016 7:36 AM

2016-03-19T07:36:37-04:00

Because Service Members are allowed to speak their minds just like regular Citizens. The UCMJ places hard limits on what some of those things are in regards to "Disrespect of a Superior Commissioned Officer" and "Disrespect of a Public Official" (which doesn't apply to Enlisted).

We're fully allowed to question "policy" decisions. I can say "that's a stupid decision" from a POLICY standpoint all day long. It's when I attack the MAN, we get into some real gray area.

Additionally, we're sworn to the Constitution, and one of the things enshrined in it is "non-interference" by the government in matters of Speech. That means neither Compelled nor Restricted Speech. The military keeps out mouth shut under the caveat of "good order and discipline" and unless the Speech actually violates that, it should be handled "informally" as opposed to "formally."

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2016 8:04 AM

2016-03-19T08:04:55-04:00

Negative does not necessarily mean disrespectful.

As others have said disrespectful can be hard to define.

Response by SSG Jesse Cheadle made Mar 19 at 2016 12:15 PM

2016-03-19T12:15:07-04:00

Freedom of speech Sarge. Freedom of speech.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Mar 19 at 2016 3:27 PM

2016-03-19T15:27:11-04:00

Freedom of Speech is the freedom to voice POLITICAL opinions. It has nothing to do with Private Snuffy disrespecting his Team Leader.

The Constitution clearly articulates that citizens of a free country have the inalienable right to political speech, and it just so happens that since our Commander-in-Chief is a civilian, he's fair game for POLITICAL criticism.

But he's still the POTUS. I've corrected Soldiers for failing to use his title when speaking about him. And I voted against President Obama TWICE. But if Private Snuffy can't call me my just my last name, he can't call the President by his last name.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2016 5:07 PM

2016-03-19T17:07:16-04:00

According to guidance published around a year ago, it is a potentially punitive charge. I have not heard of one personally, but I would be stunned if it doesn't happen out there in the force.

I think you'll notice the conspicuous lake of junior enlisted service member posters in this forum.

Response by CPO Amb. Terry Earthwind Nichols made Mar 19 at 2016 6:48 PM

2016-03-19T18:48:32-04:00

Anybody who does such a thing has no respect for anyone in their of command either. Art. 15 them.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Mar 19 at 2016 6:55 PM

2016-03-19T18:55:42-04:00

We should. However, I think those who post negative things about their boss - whether it's the POTUS or their civilian superiors - pay a heavy price for their exercise of "free speech." Free speech does NOT include hateful language or language intended to inflame or incite.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Mar 19 at 2016 7:33 PM

2016-03-19T19:33:41-04:00

I have to ask the question; are you sick of seeing it in general, or are you sick of seeing it against our current Commander In Chief? The question you have to ask yourself; if the same comments were being made about a CIC you didn't support, would you be as tired of seeing it?

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Mar 19 at 2016 10:07 PM

2016-03-19T22:07:11-04:00

Why only service members? Why not everyone then? Service members have Freedoms of speech rights too. If you sensor them you must sensor everyone.

Response by SSG Jesse Cheadle made Mar 19 at 2016 11:09 PM

2016-03-19T23:09:40-04:00

Article 88. Contempt toward officials

There is your answer.

Be prepared to write countless counselings and cite multiple witnesses.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Mar 20 at 2016 1:36 AM

2016-03-20T01:36:23-04:00

It depends on the command, how nosy they are and how much they want to kiss the COC's ass. Service members do get in trouble for public comments. With the advent of social media thousands of comments are made every hour that probably fall under contempt. They just isnt a way to police them all.

Response by CPT Tamara Brewer made Mar 20 at 2016 1:46 PM

2016-03-20T13:46:02-04:00

Even as a retired officer I decline to post negative comments about the POTUS, no matter what. I took an oath. Prosecution should be: death threats, refusal to obey his orders, hate crimes. But disgruntled statements will always be apart of human nature. We as leaders need to mentor our Soldiers as to proper places to vent those issues.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 2:24 AM

2016-03-21T02:24:50-04:00

Probably because there would be little left of a USA, USN, USMC, USCG, or USAF if we did!!!

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Mar 21 at 2016 10:19 AM

2016-03-21T10:19:12-04:00

1SG Private RallyPoint Member That is great question and I believe there are a lot of elements involved in making comments about the Commander-in-Chief openly that are much different then actually posting comments about someone in your immeidate Chain of Command that would be of a demeaning, degrading, or of a contemptable nature. Most of all this information is covered by the UCMJ, but the delegate piece with the President is that he wears two hats (Civilian Leadership and Commander-in-Chief). I would believe there would have to be a comment of direct contempt for his life and well being before anyone in the service here on RallyPoint could be considered a threat or in violation of certain Articles within the UCMJ, but for military to military comments and remarks, caution should be exercised here by SMs. I think the best policy is you can criticise a decision, a remark, a policy, or anything that our President does or that he does as the Commander-in-Chief, as long as it is done in a professional manner. Exercising our freedom of speech in blogs or sites like this is a freedom that we have, but as an institution let's use "class and professionalism" to exercise that right! Just my opinion!

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Mar 21 at 2016 11:32 AM

2016-03-21T11:32:35-04:00

The oath is to follow orders of those appointed over you, I served while G dub was POTUS and never publicly stated he was a complete embarrassment until he left office. Your in the military, you were not issued an opinion, the only rights you have are to STFU and follow orders. This is what happens when policy matters more than effective troops.

Response by SrA Paul Pfeil made Mar 21 at 2016 12:00 PM

2016-03-21T12:00:20-04:00

Attention to all of you active and reserve guys that think you can speak your mind, you better read this link!!!!!!! SHUT YOUR PIEHOLES, DO NOT SPEAK OUT UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE MARCHED TO CHOW FOR EVER!!!!!!

http://m.army.mil/article/73367/Social_media_misuse_punishable_under_UCMJ

Social media misuse punishable under UCMJ

Soldiers who use social media must abide by the terms outlined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 12:16 PM

2016-03-21T12:16:26-04:00

My personal opinion is because it would look like censorship from the top down which gets into the area of tyranny and dictatorship. what types of negative things are being said should also be included in the conversation. People showing discontent with the current administration is a common theme in American life no matter which administration happens to be in charge. Now if we're talking about anything that falls in the realm of hate crimes, personal attacks, or threats, than yes, those should be punishable. But to go after someone because they are unhappy sounds like a waste of time and paper. Do yourself a favor and 'Unfriend' people that have opinions you disagree with, than you don't have to see their posts.

Response by SFC Edwin Mujica made Mar 21 at 2016 12:34 PM

2016-03-21T12:34:38-04:00

I believe service members has the right to express themselves as any other citizen, as long as they do not make any threats or incite others to commit illegal acts. After all we live in a democracy and we are free to stick our foot in our mouth as often as we want.

Response by SGT Randel Pruett made Mar 21 at 2016 12:37 PM

2016-03-21T12:37:29-04:00

It's called Freedom Of Speech, which, thankfully, we all have.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 1:32 PM

2016-03-21T13:32:59-04:00

unless it's a death threat, what would be the point? How much time and $$$$ would go into monitoring social media? who would get to determine what was "negative" and how negative something had to be to warrant a charge? how many manhours would go into prosecuting people for posting "Obama is a bad POTUS"? Such an idea smacks of FRAUD, WASTE and ABUSE. Fill out a hurt feelings report and drive on.

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 2:31 PM

2016-03-21T14:31:42-04:00

Criticizing an elected official does not go against your oath of enlistment even if it is the Commander and chief.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I took an oath to protect the constitution which so happens to protect freedom of speech, and I believe that you must respect the rank/position not the individual. Service members are not mindless robots that must like and agree with every person above them and policies enacted. We are still free to form our own opinions and vote how we see fit. If service members are not protected by the Bill of Rights then why do we fight for them?

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Mar 21 at 2016 2:33 PM

2016-03-21T14:33:38-04:00

Bottom line MSG Berry...if the comments and opinions are factually based and supported and do not threaten the life and safety of the CIC, it is all part of "free speech." You may disagree or agree with someone that Obama is the worst president ever...that is your right. It is your right to say and post it.

Now, in all honesty, I was very careful what I posted until I retired after almost 40 years in uniform (Active & Reserve). Even now, my respect of the office of the President is so strong that I am very circumspect in my opinions and try to have facts to back up and support my opinion. For me it is not about the person so much as the policy and actions of any given administration. While I agree with former governor from Massachusetts, "The fish rots from the head".... I am normally careful to answer the who, what, where, how and why behind the comments.

So before you call 1-800 Secret Service or drafting an AR-15, first ask yourself if the comments threaten the life or safety of the President? Or are they simply expressing an opinion that impeachment or removal of office is in order? Next ask if the comments are purely political in nature and there might have some substance supporting? Now outright disrespect in terms of slurs and such...now you are getting into a gray area which is a slippery slope for the 1st Amendment.

Having said all that, for 'the wise" who ware the uniform, we can have our opinions but tempered with prudence.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Mar 21 at 2016 2:49 PM

2016-03-21T14:49:12-04:00

I get more than a little angry when I see people critizing the POTUS who would never have thought to do that when "W" was in office, thinking it was disrespectful. Think race has some bearing on this? No? Think again.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 3:14 PM

2016-03-21T15:14:00-04:00

I disagree with POTUS about numerous things, but that doesn't mean I hate him! It seems that it boils down to that some people can't disagree with someone without hating them.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 3:25 PM

2016-03-21T15:25:53-04:00

Can someone not merge all these threads complaining about Obama being disrespected into one single thread? We get it, some people think he is being treated unfairly. But do we really need 3-4 threads on the same topic?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 3:40 PM

2016-03-21T15:40:12-04:00

maybe we need a new branch: Social Media Surveillance. the branch insignia could be a blue falcon.....

Response by SSG Doug Price made Mar 21 at 2016 5:22 PM

2016-03-21T17:22:09-04:00

I don't give a shit. I earned the right to justify my opinion and I will do so.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 6:25 PM

2016-03-21T18:25:28-04:00

Between what I've seen here and on various other social media venues, we wouldn't have much of a military left if they charged everyone who said anything remotely negative about anyone in a civilian office be it SecDef, a service secretary, members of Congress, the President, the VP or, in the case of the Guard, state officials.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 6:28 PM

2016-03-21T18:28:47-04:00

Also if you feel the need to use vulgar language then please do not respond. We are supposed to be a group of professionals and some of the responses from seasoned Soldiers speaks volumes of their leadership.

Response by SPC(P) Alexandra Hinds made Mar 21 at 2016 6:39 PM

2016-03-21T18:39:24-04:00

I truly and undoubtedly believe that if not all, most service members have commented or posted negatively about the Commander-In-Chief. They are all guilty of making mistakes, even if they were unintended. There will be persons that disagree with their decisions whether or not they are for the greater good for the Country and our way of life. We basically need ignore or disregard these people and accept that they do have Freedom of Speech. We all fight for that freedom and it is our basic human right to use of freedom of speech. We cannot be angry or agitated with the people who exercise that right. I am guilty of it, though I do not believe that I have ever publicly posted on a social network about the issues I see. I do however comment, like others do and voice my own opinion.

Again, the best way is to do nothing unless it threatens our Commander-In-Chiefs welfare of state of health. We do not need to waste money and resources we do not have.

Response by SGT Philip Keys made Mar 21 at 2016 6:51 PM

2016-03-21T18:51:38-04:00

You would think the military has way more important things to worry about than people talking badly about the president.

Response by SPC(P) Alexandra Hinds made Mar 21 at 2016 9:12 PM

2016-03-21T21:12:56-04:00

Yes, I am commenting again because the way I see it, this is a battle of opinions, what an individual believes is right or wrong.

Not all of it is intended to be sought out as 'hateful' or to 'inflict damage'. If someone were to just comment on their opinion of the Commander-In-Chief in a non-criticizing, verbally sound way, should he or she receive the same repercussions as someone who were to do the opposite?
Regarding myself, I believe that if someone has a just and sound opinion, why should what others think of it stop them from saying it? I thought that was the whole point of Freedom of Speech? Yes, I have heard that Freedom of Speech doesn't effect Military members however, why should it not effect the people who are greatly defending it?

I understand that some opinions are better left unsaid than said however, you cannot expect someone to retort from speaking them just because someone doesn't agree with them and yet, you or someone else can comment on their opinion and freedom to speak as openly as you care to, as I said previously. If the comment was to offend or do harm, yes, that is a reasonable to see why people would get upset. Now if the comment fits the argument or they have a just cause or reason to bring it up, why should their opinion be discarded just because you do not see it as a fit comment?

If you do not agree with the Commander-In-Chief and his ways, why are we not allowed to speak them in a sound and just way? Everyday, people are commenting on the things they do wrong or right. Why is it any different when speaking of the Commander-In-Chief? After all, he is just a person like us, correct? He has greater power and control, yes, but that does not grant him Justice to say anything he sees fit at the moment. If he were to say something that could be seen as 'rude' or 'unprofessional' would anyone comment on him and tell him that if he doesn't stop it, there will be consequences? Aside from the people or person(s) he consults with, who else would have the courage to address what has been said and fix it to where it wouldn't cause any harm?

The way I see this is that because he is the Commander-In-Chief, we need to treat him above everyone else which yes, I understand. However, he should get the same punishment as you or me for saying something others didn't like. Again, he was born the same way as we were and went through the basic steps of life like we did. I am not for any comments about the Commander-In-Chief being posted on Social Medias. That I do understand. But if you were outside, let's just say standing around with your office or Military buddies, the subject happened to come up and you or someone around you voiced their honest opinion, should they fess up and turn themselves in and be prepared for the punishment of voicing their opinion? Or does it just have to be engraved on social media sites or stamped on the internet?

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made Mar 21 at 2016 9:29 PM

2016-03-21T21:29:09-04:00

Are they commenting in an official capacity of off duty?

Response by A1C Wayne Martin made Mar 21 at 2016 9:41 PM

2016-03-21T21:41:39-04:00

Some people lose their military bearing on the way out of the front gate.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 9:53 PM

2016-03-21T21:53:11-04:00

1SG Private RallyPoint Member You need to stop, I am so sick of that respect President Obama (respect the office naturally) it happens ever six months or so. Makes me wonder about people that come on here and start these threads. You cannot believe how pissed off I am right now.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Mar 21 at 2016 10:52 PM

2016-03-21T22:52:39-04:00

Because the government would not know what to do with all of that money!

Response by CW2 Fred Baker made Mar 21 at 2016 11:26 PM

2016-03-21T23:26:02-04:00

Military service members on duty is one thing and the UCMJ provides restrictions. Social media is the purview of an off duty soldier/citizen. Negative things said on social media are covered by the 1st Amendment. Every citizen should be thankful that we can say negative things without prosecution. Also, negative comments may or may not be true on social media, but then again, that applies to anything on the internet. Threats against POTUS are illegal and the Secret Service takes them serious and rightfully so. I would caution those who do wish to post that they never know who could be reading their posts and other repercussions might follow. My rule is to never post anything I wouldn't shout out while standing in the middle of town.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2016 11:42 PM

2016-03-21T23:42:21-04:00

I swore to uphold and defend the constitution. I see blatent violations of the constitution from the Potus. I don't feel a bit bad about bad mouthing a man that too the same oath but instead circumvents it trashes it every way he can to push his agenda all the while destroying our military from the inside out. Fuck him!

Response by SFC Chris Weaver made Mar 22 at 2016 4:49 AM

2016-03-22T04:49:36-04:00

Depends are they talking about the politics of the President or the President himself? A Service Member can voice their opinion on the politics all they want, Towards the actual President, NOPE

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Mar 22 at 2016 5:21 AM

2016-03-22T05:21:17-04:00

"Why do we not charge Service Members who post negative things about the Commander-in-Chief on social media?"

Good question. He has done a great job under the most trying circumstances.

Walt

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 5:24 AM

2016-03-22T05:24:41-04:00

Once again the comment was him being called a black muslim so that is wrong.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 6:53 AM

2016-03-22T06:53:39-04:00

Because it's not that big of a deal. The rules are very clear on what is prosecutable. Negative doesn't mean criminal. Even soldiers have a right to vent, just gotta keep it out of the realm of disrespect, or threatening.

Response by Cpl Dean Ditto made Mar 22 at 2016 8:02 AM

2016-03-22T08:02:24-04:00

Because we live in a free country jackhole.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 8:14 AM

2016-03-22T08:14:47-04:00

I respect the office of the president of the United States, not the man occupying the position.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 8:33 AM

2016-03-22T08:33:57-04:00

This little thing called the First Amendment... Maybe you have heard of it?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 8:43 AM

2016-03-22T08:43:50-04:00

Because of this inconvenient thing called Freedom of Speech. Lese Majestie (Disrespect to the king) is only a crime in a monarchy.

There was a cartoon that was popular in WWII. (Wille was either the name or one of the major characters.) General Patton hated it, but had no authority to stop it.

And the same thing applies to people who think they have the right to disobey orders because the President is a war criminal or a traitor. Those things just flat are not true, until so adjudged by a court of law.

None of us are the supreme arbiter of what is true or false; right or wrong; good or bad, and we need to quit pretending that we are.

Response by SSG Scott Warthan made Mar 22 at 2016 8:48 AM

2016-03-22T08:48:49-04:00

I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is not fulfilling his part. Stop looking at color and look at principle. By the way. I didn't like Clinton either.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 9:07 AM

2016-03-22T09:07:41-04:00

SFC, "negative things" is a slippery slope. Aside from all members of the military owe it to their superiors to critically analyze every order (tactfully), the service member certainly doesn't do himself or the military any favors by blindly supporting whomever is in power. And that door swings both ways too...one day there will be a CIC that you may not be crazy about and I would caution against setting a double standard.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 9:52 AM

2016-03-22T09:52:28-04:00

Was this question asked by you when the Bush's were in office? Plenty of disrespect and discontempt then, probably more. Is this just for the current CIC or for all CIC's?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 10:06 AM

2016-03-22T10:06:11-04:00

I think it also depends on the criticism itself. Even though we are in the military, and are subject to UCMJ, we are also Americans who are entitled to free speech. Nothing in the UCMJ regulates that right to free speech per se. I believe (and I am probably old school in this) that criticism amongst the ranks is healthy to a certain extent. The difficulty lies in determining when it crosses the line, and who then determines what that line is. For me, I think stating a disagreement with the POTUS during a discussion amongst other troops is protected speech, but when that disagreement is posted online and becomes part of a campaign then it crosses the line.
Interesting topic!

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 10:18 AM

2016-03-22T10:18:31-04:00

Because of freedom of speech? Why should anyone be charged with expressing a disagreement as long as it's not distasteful?

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 10:30 AM

2016-03-22T10:30:36-04:00

If the current president did anything other than create racial tension along with his first lady and if he did anything at all that helped America you wouldn't see as many negative comments about him.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 12:16 PM

2016-03-22T12:16:11-04:00

The military has a chain of command and every chain of command no matter which unit or branch, the top of the chain is and will always be POTUS. You should be punished for disrespecting anyone appointed over you regardless your paygrade.

I'm a business owner and if one of my employees disrespected me they won't be an employee anymore. Yes they have the right to free speech but I also have the right to terminate their employment.

It all stems down to Accountability. We need to hold ourselves accountable and hold others accountable for their actions.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 1:32 PM

2016-03-22T13:32:40-04:00

What is this N Korea? We all have an oath but there are unlawful orders that any Soldier can refuse to execute. If a soldier wants to rant then let them go ahead. There are rules about using your military position and uniform for unsanctioned reasons, even if it is for the good of charity. Death threats and all that are against the law no matter what.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 2:21 PM

2016-03-22T14:21:34-04:00

You have to be very careful what you put out there in social media. Starting with a safe comment about your Commander-in-chief can quickly progress into a very negative and disrespectful string of comments from others. Even though you may start out with something that is safe, you can quickly get wrapped up in other's comments and unwanted attention may be brought down on you. Best advice I can give is don't put that stuff out there. Talking about the CIC is one thing, publishing it so everyone can see it is something else.

Response by SSG Timothy Miller made Mar 22 at 2016 3:05 PM

2016-03-22T15:05:27-04:00

Social media is one of the areas potential employers look at when making hiring decisions. The young peeps today have to learn this.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 4:57 PM

2016-03-22T16:57:09-04:00

It would case a very slippery slop; both in policy and legally. And here is why:

Article 88: “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.”

For an enlisted member, there is no such Article.

And just saying you do not like a person is not "contemptuous words"; mostly depending on who reads it. but, if you call him/her names or derogatory terms, well; may God have mercy.

Example 1: Lt. Smith states that she does not like President West. This is not a violation of Article 88 since no contemptuous words were used.

Example 2: Capt Sheridan makes a comment about the President Johnson, stating that he is stupid and has no damn clue how to do his job. This could lead up to an Article 88 case.

Example 3: PVT Snuffy (poor Amn/PVT Snuffy) states he feels that the current POTUS should be impeached. PVT Snuffy has not violated any rules, laws or regulations. Article 88 does not apply due to PVT snuffy not being a commissioned officer and also due to First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Since Congress are the ones that authorize changes to the UCMJ, the military must take into account the First Amendment.

if I am wrong about any of this, please let me know and if possible provide a reference. Thanks.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 5:10 PM

2016-03-22T17:10:12-04:00

Did you see when the SM got a award for being a social media blue falcon? Saying something negative is fine, and if you'd report a SM over being negative towards the POTUS that is just being a blue falcon like the MAJ below said. Disrespect and Negative are two largely different things. If you disrespect yeah that is no different then doing it to a NCO or CO. This topic does not have a very clear line on the dos and don'ts .

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Mar 22 at 2016 6:21 PM

2016-03-22T18:21:14-04:00

My question is why would we? Why do we, just because we work for the government, have to have our rights trampled on? I think that freedom of speech should fully apply to everyone to include service members and it shouldn't be a chargeable offense. Now to post a threat or something along those lines should definitely be a crime as it would in any other case. But just general criticism should be allowed for the most part.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 11:03 PM

2016-03-22T23:03:47-04:00

"Oooh noooo, Pvt. Snuffy tweeted a bad thing about the Prez! Let's take his money!!!" Are you serious?
Maybe he's from WV and the current administration has wrecked his family's ability to financially support themselves through the decimation of the coalfields. Maybe he's angry cause his dad is out of work and he's sending money home to help them.

Maybe YOU are spending too much time surfing the FACEBOOK when YOU should be observing SGT's time. And just maybe you are invading his right to a personal opinion....
I dunno I just work here......
But if I were an NCO in your shoes, I'd re-evaluate this question. Heck, I'd even sit down with this Soldier and ask him, in a polite way, what his issues were. Listen to him. It may make him a Better Soldier. It may make you a better NCO.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 5:55 AM

2016-03-23T05:55:29-04:00

I would be a Soldier who is a human rights activist on the Pentagon level. I focused in LGBT rights. I regularly express disagreement without ucmj. Now how do I do this with congressional,senatorial and senior enlisted/ officers without getting my Sgt (P) but in hot water. I know the trigger in which I pull. Their has to be social conscious behind the criticism and accountibility. I use take but I equip it with facts. I am SGT SHANE ORTEGA featured most prominent in the Washington Post for what I have been doing for the past 10 years for the repeal of the trans service ban. Also I work on veterans advocacy and healthcare policy. It does not matter if you are a private or a General officer.
Tact goes along way. So does intelligence. Some very weak leadership does not have that. They are indeed afraid to fail from making COMMAND decions or one's that are logical. You have Soldiers like myself that step up. That learn the constitutional law, that lobby,act that make things happen. You have to be an adaptable leader able to also follow. Right is not might but flexibility. It is a selfless act to lead NOT a right.

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Mar 23 at 2016 6:56 AM

2016-03-23T06:56:39-04:00

I didn't like former President Clinton and made my opinion known and the reasons why, but I kept my comments and opinions to myself while on duty or in uniform. You don't have to like the person to obey their lawful orders. Posting on social media is a right but I would suggest you sure don't use a DoD computer to do so and don't post a picture of yourself in dress uniform on your homepage. If we disciplined all the troops who didn't/doesn't like the former president, the current president, or the future president, we would have a serious personnel shortage.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 8:46 AM

2016-03-23T08:46:27-04:00

By Army regulation ENLISTED personnel may voice their (negative) opinions about POTUS in a non official capacity. (ie on face book) However wearing your ASUs and talking to the media is not allowed as it gives the impression the ARMY thinks as you do.

Commissioned and Warrants may not speak openly about the POTUS (per reg)

However, there is a DoD regulation that states vaguely that no one receiving federal pay may speak badly about the administration.

Response by Sgt Chuck Hallbert made Mar 23 at 2016 8:54 AM

2016-03-23T08:54:51-04:00

Because the fastest way to violence is the suppression of free speech.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 11:54 AM

2016-03-23T11:54:20-04:00

As a retired officer I can say that I was mostly aware of article 88 when I posted on Social Media when it came to our current lame ass president and the gaggle of ass clowns in Washington and regretfully refrained from speaking my mind. From watching split screen impeachment hearings and wag the dog bombing runs in Iraq while our unit was in the middle of deployments to Iraq, Saudi and UAE to cover for a rapist and liar in chief to serving under this current buffoon, I can only say that since I retired, the weight of knowing that I swore an oath to defend the constitution while watching it being destroyed has been lifted. I can now say without the threat of prosecution that we are living in a post-constitutional America and the American people have willingly thrown away the service and sacrifice of millions of service members and veterans by putting this POS in office and even entertaining putting a liar and criminal Hillary or an outright socialist scumbag in office. If you all want prosecutions for speaking out move to North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia or China. If you want to live free and value liberty, follow the damm oath you swore and support and defend the constitution. There is a reason it comes before obeying orders in your oath.

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 12:18 PM

2016-03-23T12:18:29-04:00

Public policy has crept in to dictate how the military acts. It doesn't matter how you personally feel for POTUS, good or bad. As the good Major said Art 88 and 92 exist, but on the enlisted side your battle to prosecute goes from up hill to climbing a sheer cliff face.
The criticism of a public elected leader falls under free speech, and recently the army has been aligning closer to civilian public policy. Also, criticism doesn't fall under the realm of fighting words which in recent years has become severely limited due to recent precedents.
If you do want to go after a soldier the time and effort spent to go through the process will be costly to the army or whatever branch. JAG has better things to do. With sexual assaults, theft, drugs, and internal violence we have more to focus pin than how someone feels or speaks about someone.
I would advise you to, thoughtfully, generate a counseling and have a conversation with the soldiers. You can ram it down their throats or you can compel their sense of higher duty of professionalism. Of course you know what I would advocate for. As a leader you'll get better support.

Response by PO1 Darren Martin made Mar 23 at 2016 12:23 PM

2016-03-23T12:23:48-04:00

If leadership is surfing the web looking for bad comments then they have far too much time on their hands and should be given an article-15 for waste of government resources. Why not train ones soldiers, sailors, air men and marines instead of trying to find mysterious comments from someone who may or may not have posted them.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 12:43 PM

2016-03-23T12:43:16-04:00

According to AFI 1-1, paragraph 2.13 Political Activities. The subparagraph 2.13.1 clearly states that you can make disrespectful remarks on social media as long as your military affiliation or status is not associated with the post or listed on the site.

2.13.1. You have the right and duty as an American citizen to vote and to voice your opinions concerning political matters; however, you must be careful that your personal opinions and activities are not directly, or by implication, represented as those of the Air Force. Further, Article 88, UCMJ, prohibits commissioned officers from using contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of a Military Department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he or she is on duty or present. Enlisted personnel who make derogatory or disrespectful
statements about political leaders may violate Article 134, UCMJ, when their military status is associated with the statements (such as making these comments on a social networking site
where the member’s employment with the Air Force is also listed).

Response by SGT Richard H. made Mar 23 at 2016 4:17 PM

2016-03-23T16:17:46-04:00

Define "Negative things".
Slander, etc..yeah, that's a problem.....but if it's legitimate and properly stated criticism, yes, he's the Commander in Chief, but he IS an elected official, and you ARE part of the electorate.

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Mar 23 at 2016 6:11 PM

2016-03-23T18:11:10-04:00

I have never read or seen where a soldiers loses any right upon entry into the U.S. Army. You still have all the same rights and responsibilities as any citizen, but how and when you exercise them are a little trickier. For example if I disagreed with the current POTUS and I wrote an article to the local newspaper about how I disagree with his decisions to give everyone heath care and I did not attack him or his place of birth or religion ,only the policy, then what is the offense? Then you sign JOE SNUFFY with no rank or mention that I am in the ARMY or other branch of the Military. In think if you did it this way and didn’t call names you should be alright.
As for social media. Just don’t get in the weeds with name calling, or stating that you refuse to follow his orders. As with anything in life think it over before you do it or post it on social media, but if you insist on still being disrespectful on social media I could use a few more ARCOMS! Remember that when you assumed the role of a soldier, you did not lay aside the civilian.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 23 at 2016 11:15 PM

2016-03-23T23:15:49-04:00

We should 1SG Private RallyPoint Member, but we are still coming to grips with this world. No service member should ever say, let alone post, disparaging comments about our president. You don't have to like him, or his policies, but he is still the boss. The office alone deserves or utmost respect. I believe over time, this will be included in the UCMJ.

Response by SFC Terry Murphy made Mar 24 at 2016 9:42 AM

2016-03-24T09:42:04-04:00

I have always thought that we have the freedom of speech to say what we want, however, when I was on active duty, I knew not to say anything disrespectful while in uniform. Now with social media, people have to be smart about what and how they say something. It would still cause problems to say things in uniform, but also, don't use your open locker in your barracks as a backdrop for your ranting about your chain of command, branch of service, or your commander-in -chief.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2016 9:59 AM

2016-03-24T09:59:05-04:00

Why? I dare say we wouldn't have a military at this point.

But the more technical answer is deeper than that. First, what do you consider negative? You are allowed to disagree with him. You can object to what he does. But there are lines and boundaries.

And no... we do not give up our freedom of speech when we join the military as many falsely think. You do not lose any rights at all as a citizen of the united States.

This is something that can be taken care of by first line leaders. Charging would be a little overzealous. And I suspect, that most of the people asking this question now probably wouldn't have bat an eye during the previous administration. But again, that's what we call politics.

So in summary... it all depends on what's being said and how visible it is. A PVT disagreeing with the president on Facebook and calling him names is going to garner a lot less attention than a four star general questioning policy. The former will probably not have any negative action unless they have someone in their chain notice it. The later will likely be packing his bags and heading to the house.

Best practice is to keep your opinions to yourself and don't post them on social media.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2016 2:36 PM

2016-03-24T14:36:07-04:00

Using an old UCMJ, that penalize soldier for doing common things.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2016 10:33 PM

2016-05-21T22:33:27-04:00

Because per Army Regulation, *Enlisted* members can post any non violent comments about POTUS or any elected official (as long as it does not appear they represent the Army in that capacity). HOWEVER, there is an obscure DoD regulation that states no DoD employee may speak negatively about elected officials.

However, Commissioned and Warrant Officers do have a provision prohibiting them. (Article 88) --“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 CW2 Chuck Hoelzel made May 28 at 2016 12:34 PM

2016-05-28T12:34:17-04:00

Because it is called freedom of speech. If they were charged for expressing their opinion you would live some where like Russia. As long as theybfollow lawful orders and do not violate ucmj they should not be charged.

Response by PO3 Nancy Von D made Nov 10 at 2016 1:13 PM

2016-11-10T13:13:06-05:00

I want to say it's because it's social media. BUT, there are gray areas that doesn't apply to military memebers. Thus would be something you so would probably bring up to the JAG at your command??

Response by CPT Jeffrey Blair Sr made Nov 22 at 2016 12:59 PM

2016-11-22T12:59:02-05:00

First Amendment would be a good start. You wouldn't if you posted negative things about your company commander so why is posting about the commander in chief any different.