UCMJ Article 88 & Social Media

[squorch2]

As an active duty member you're quite restricted in your speech and activities even when not wearing the uniform. (does not apply to reservists)

 

[insanebikerboy]

Regardless of it being ok to have a page like this, he was given an order to cease and desist and he didn't. Cut and dried in my opinion.

 

[robav8r]

Another reason I am interested in this topic, is the connection between our anonymity and our cell phones and internet/email IP addresses. Do our online profiles and aliases keep us seperated from our military affiliation? Seems easy to claim neutrality at a political event in civilian clothes without connecting oneself to the military, but it seems increasingly that more and more of our lives are being logged and categorized through our activity online. I know one of the first things NCIS will do during an investigation is to check your outlook pst files and review all your cell phone activity. It seems to me that the notion of anonymity and neutrality online is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Thoughts?

 

[squorch2]

If you think you're anonymous on the internet, you're wrong. Not sure what "neutrality" means in this context.

 

[robav8r]

Not sure what "neutrality" means in this context.

In the same context as anonymous, thinking you are being "neutral" in your opinions and comments just because you're online.

 

[helolumpy]

As an active duty member you're quite restricted in your speech and activities even when not wearing the uniform. (does not apply to reservists)

So you think there is no "gray area" in this rule?

Suppose a sibling or classmate is running for public office. You post a picture on your Facebook page of you with your sibling/classmate at a campaign rally and you are wearing civillian clothes. On that same Facebook page you have pictures of you wearing a uniform.

With no gray area you violated the rule because you have associated yourself and your internet profile, which you have previously identified as a military officer with a political campaign.

The case that promted this dicussion is pretty clear, but IMO there are some issues that DOD needs to address when dealing with Internet profiles and our First Amendment rights, hence my post.

 

[Brett327]

I think some of you may be over thinking this. I don't think the UCMJ needs to address social media directly (and I'd be very surprised if it ever does). This is where judicial interpretation comes in.

 

[Uncle Fester]

It doesn't. Look, replace the words President and Obama in these rants with "my company commander" or "the skipper" or "the sergeant major", and would anyone be discussing this guy's right to free speech? Hell, no. Regardless of your opinion of the man who holds it, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces isn't an honorary title. He's in your chain of command, and publicly belittling and disrespecting someone in your chain of command is verboten.

If he was talking about a politician not in the military chain - a Senator or governor or dog catcher or what have you - yeah, a debatable point about members of the armed forces engaging in political debate. But the Pres, SecDef, service secretary...if you're in uniform, you work for those guys.

 

[squorch2]

Suppose a sibling or classmate is running for public office. You post a picture on your Facebook page of you with your sibling/classmate at a campaign rally

This is a bad example, as you can't do anything at campaign rallies other than watch. Being up on stage is not just watching.

From 1344.10:

4.1.2. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.1. Participate in partisan political fundraising activities (except as permitted in
subparagraph 4.1.1.7.), rallies, conventions (including making speeches in the course thereof),
management of campaigns, or debates, either on one’s own behalf or on that of another, without
respect to uniform or inference or appearance of official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement.
Participation includes more than mere attendance as a spectator. (See subparagraph 4.1.1.9.)

 

[revan1013]

He heads a "political organization" in the form of the "Armed Forces Tea Party" on Facebook. That's political organizing, and a very visible example at that.

Seems straightforward to me.

 

[robav8r]

Great discussion & information so far, thanks !

 

[nittany03]

Some more to keep in mind from your handy-dandy MCM.

It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion , even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article. Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not ordinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

Not a JAG, but it seems that stating that [fill in official here] is an idiot to your buddy is fine. Posting it on AW or Facebook may be later found by a court to fall under the "broad circulation" clause. Castigate [fill in official here]'s policies all you like. Just don't personally insult them. And, as always, my favorite clause in the MCM. To wit: the truth of your statements is not a defense, even if [fill in official here] turns out to be a complete asshole.

 

[Schnugg]

So a good rule of thumb would be: If you wouldn't say it to their face, don't post it online."

 

[phrogpilot73]

I don't believe that any of us in uniform are entitled to have any public opinions about anything, especially when you are prominantly advertising that you are a member of the US Armed Forces.

Wow, to drink the kool aid at such a young age. Ironic that you just posted a pulbic opinion (AirWarriors, especially this subforum, is publically accessible via google), and yet you're a member of the uniformed services, and your avatar clearly advertises that you are a member of the armed forces. Your public opinion was about "anything" I might add. What if someone asked you what your favorite beer was, while you're standing there in uniform? You are expressing a PUBLIC opinion about ANYTHING and you're prominiantly advertising your affiliation with the Armed Forces.

We in the military are not supposed to be mindless automatons, and we are entitled to opinions. We are governed by instructions as to whether we can share those opinions or not. Your sentence makes it sound like you just sit there with your mouth shut so you don't let the public know that you like rocky road ice cream.

And yes, I think I know what the point of this sentence was - but the way it is written is quite the opposite.

(does not apply to reservists)

Umm, not true. If I am drilling, or on active duty - I have to adhere to all instructions that apply to active duty personnel. So if it's a drill weekend, and I'm in civvies - I can't just say or do whatever the hell I want.

This is a bad example, as you can't do anything at campaign rallies other than watch. Being up on stage is not just watching.

Actually I think it's a good example. You ASSUMED that he was on stage when he took the picture. It could have been backstage, in the crowd, it's just a picture with his sibling/classmate. There is still grey area. It's the same kind of grey area that allows for a Senior Chief to be married to a CDR.

 

[Uncle Fester]

There is a world of difference between criticism and insubordination and contemptuous words, at any level of the chain of command. Saying "I think what (person in charge) is doing is a bad idea," is one thing; saying instead, "(Person in charge) is an idiot and I will not obey his orders," is quite another. The SGT in question was not treading that line, he left it behind long ago. For him and his supporters to simply wave the First Amendment at the issue is naiive at best. And the argument that, somehow, things you say on the Interwebs "don't count" is just idiotic.

Loyalty and respect for proper authority. If you wear the uniform, you don't have to like the person giving the orders, you can even tell them you disagree with them, but you don't get to call them an asshole to their face without expecting some consequences.