Marine Facebook page subject to public scrutiny (the Man DOES check on you)

[picklesuit]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/14/marines-facebook-comments-obama-fuel-free-speech-debate/

I know, it's FOX News, but a topic closely related to many of our hearts/minds.

I never had a chance to see his page, as it was taken down, but I think his lawyers are making a mountain our of a molehill...

As if worrying about the Chinese watching my Facebook isn't enough, now I have to worry about Big Navy too...

That being said, in a fight between the ACLU and the United States Marine Corps...I pick the Marines...
Pickle

 

[mmx1]

I don't think it was the speaking out per se, but the starting of a ""Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots" group that crossed the line from personal opinion into improper political activities per DoD 1344.10. You can speak your mind; forming a political group (real or online) with an apparent military affiliation....not so much.

I doubt the Marines would have noticed until the MSNBC appearance; I hope they have better things to be doing than cruising facebook.

 

[squorch2]

And actually... regardless of your apparent or unapparent military affiliation, you cannot participate in partisan political activities. You can attend rallies, fundraisers, etc. (in civvies), donate, but you cannot otherwise materially contribute to partisan political activities while on active duty.

 

[Flash]

I found this a little amusing, from a website linked on his page:

"Our Mission:
To preserve common sense conservatism and defend our Constitution that is threatened by a tyrannical government......"

 

[The Phiz]

Its really simple:
If you serve in the military and it is readily apparent on Facebook, don't post politically charged statements, unless you enjoy getting angry looks from your bosses.
Problem solved.

And this really boils down to Rule number 36 for the Clinically Retarded: Don't talk about your boss on FB.

 

[m26]

I know, it's FOX News, but a topic closely related to many of our hearts/minds.

I think it's an AP story.


Doesn't look like that big of a deal. The facebook page was probably pushing it, and appearing on MSNBC as a Marine would have been over the line, but it looks like both the Marines and the Sergeant reacted reasonably.

 

[picklesuit]

I read an article regarding Gen. Petraeus in which he was quoted stating he had stopped voting...I've heard the same from other senior O's, that they removed themselves from tthe partisan scene altogether... I don't know if that is for me, I personally like to use the freedoms I defend, but I can see their point as well...

 

[picklesuit]

And don't be the guy or gal that decides to speak at a tea party rally (or any rally for that matter) while in Uniform.

Unless that uniform is a giant, gun toting tea-bag...

 

[BACONATOR]

"There's this illusion that when we sign our contract and voluntarily commit, that we lose our right to speak out," Stein told the San Diego Union-Tribune in a story published Wednesday.


Huh? Isn't that EXACTLY what happens when we raise our right arm? We protect the right to free speech, but we give up a lot of the freedoms we protect when we're in uniform..... like spouting partisan political statements on camera.

 

[DanMa1156]

"There's this illusion that when we sign our contract and voluntarily commit, that we lose our right to speak out," Stein told the San Diego Union-Tribune in a story published Wednesday.


Huh? Isn't that EXACTLY what happens when we raise our right arm? We protect the right to free speech, but we give up a lot of the freedoms we protect when we're in uniform..... like spouting partisan political statements on camera.

No, you're wrong. Art 88 of the UCMJ states that it is unlawful to use any contemptuous words against the POTUS, VP, Congress, SECDEF, Homeland Security Sec'y, Military Secretaries, Governors and State Legislators. The language used must be personal; however policy criticisms are allowed. Furthermore, this Article ONLY can be used against an Officer.

So, in short, policy criticisms are allowed for officers, and enlisted cannot be charged with contempt under Article 88. Articles 89 and 91 deal with disrespect to Commisioned Officers, WO, PO's, or CPO's.

NL 400 beeeeeeetches.

 

[DanMa1156]

As an FYI, the root in Article 88 only applying to officers is that we receive our commission from the President, whereas enlisted members are serving out a contract.

 

[Flash]

The UCMJ is not the only thing you need to be concerned about, political activities by servicemembers is restricted by DoD Directive 1344.10.

 

[Jim123]

The UCMJ is not the only thing you need to be concerned about, political activities by servicemembers is restricted by DoD Directive 1344.10.

You're supposed to wait for the first guy in the room to ask, "Can you show me that in writing?" before you drop a bomb like that!

 

[DanMa1156]

The UCMJ is not the only thing you need to be concerned about, political activities by servicemembers is restricted by DoD Directive 1344.10.

Tou-cheeeeeee.

With that said, it's my understanding that you can still make statements so as long as you are not promoting it as something like "As a Marine, I feel that the President's policy towards... is good/bad/neutral/whatever."

Not the case?

 

[Flash]

Tou-cheeeeeee.

With that said, it's my understanding that you can still make statements so as long as you are not promoting it as something like "As a Marine, I feel that the President's policy towards... is good/bad/neutral/whatever."

Not the case?

Sure, we do it here all the time. The problems can start when you become more involved in public politics instead of just talking about it at the bar or on AW. I think he is treading far into the gray area, not specific enough with his politics or statements to get hammered yet by existing rules but with a single statement or action he could cross the line easily, especially if he started speaking in public. With this type of action though I would not be surprised if the DoD revised it regulation sooner or later to encompass other stuff like this. Then again they just might let local commanders exercise their discretion in cases like this, unless it causes too much controversy.