1st SGT v. 1st Amendment? Facebook not for “volatile” topics

[American Patriot]

1st SGT v. 1st Amendment? Facebook not for “volatile” topics

June 6th, 2013 | Outside the wire | Posted by Joe Gould
Tweet



Earlier today, a disgruntled member of an Alabama Army National Guard unit forwarded the e-mail below from a first sergeant outlining the do’s and don’t of social media with the subject line, “Troops 1st Amendment Rights being denied.”
The email cautions troops to steer clear of posts about “gun control, the Democrats, the President, Congress, or personal opinions about STATE or FEDERAL GOVERNMENT matters.”
Racism and sexism somehow don’t get a mention, but the timing is curious. This e-mail from January surfaced as the Marine Corps decided to get all expeditionary on Marines’ “salty” Facebook posts. Female Marines were being sexually harassed online, and the Corps decided to take a stand.
Last month, Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., sent a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Jim Amos and Principal Deputy Inspector General Lynn Halbrooks to express her disgust with posts implying that female Marines were sleeping with superiors to get promoted and photo memes joking about domestic violence and telling women to “get back in the kitchen.” Speier demanded that Amos respond with a plan of action by May 31.
Facebook in the meantime has begun cracking down on pages promoting misogyny and violence against women, and several Marine humor pages were among those purged.
Will the Army try to put the heat on beloved military-focused but politically incorrect Facebook pages and the folks who post there? Can they do so legally?
Our Alabama first sergeant asserts, “This is not an infringement on anyone’s right to free speech or personal freedoms. We must abide by a higher standard, while serving in the Army National Guard and the United States Army.”
UPDATE: From the Army Social Media Handbook 2013: ”Soldiers using social media must abide by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) at all times. Commenting, posting or linking to material that violates the UCMJ or basic rules of Soldier conduct is prohibited. Social media provides the opportunity for Soldiers to speak freely about their activities and interests. However, Soldiers are subject to UCMJ even when off duty, so talking negatively about supervisors or releasing sensitive information is punishable under the UCMJ. It is important that all Soldiers know that once they log on to a social media platform, they still represent the Army.”

From: [REDACTED] 1SG USARMY NG ALARNG (US)
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:44 PM
To: Subject: SOCIAL NETWORKING (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
ALL,
[UNIT REDACTED] conducted a social network brief during the JAN IDT. The ideas, do’s and don’t's, what can and cannot be posted, were explained in a what I believe was a very elementary level. When asked if anyone had any questions, comments or complaints, no one raised their hands. I made the assumption that there was a clear and concise understanding concerning everyone’s actions and responsibilities. Apparently I made a miscalculation in my assumption. Here it is again, for the last time.
Dos
Update personal status, ie “at the mall”
Comment on friends status, ie “happy birthday”
DONTS
Comment or add posts concerning gun control, the Democrats, the President, Congress, or personal opinions about STATE or FEDERAL GOVERNMENT matters.
What you do on face book, twitter, or anything else that is available to the public is a direct reflection on this unit and you as a soldier. If you have a question about a post, give me a call and I will let you know if it violates anything. This also includes “likes” post on other friends pages. I do not care or want to hear about someone from another unit outside the [UNIT REDACTED]. My concern is with members of [UNIT REDACTED] and [UNIT REDACTED].

By all means have fun with the networking, but stay away from volatile subjects. DON’T BE THAT GUY.
This is not an infringement on anyone’s right to free speech or personal freedoms. We must abide by a higher standard, while serving in the Army National Guard and the United States Army.
1SG [NAME REDACTED]
[UNIT REDACTED]
[ADDRESS REDACTED]
[PHONE NOS. REDACTED]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

[vector7]

Bump

[American Patriot]

by xbradtc | June 14, 2013 · 9:31 am
↓ Jump to Comments
Military law experts: Marines may not be able to ban troops from offensive sites | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com

[COLOR=#]Rate This[/COLOR]

The commandant of the Marine Corps said the service is looking into making certain websites and social media pages off-limits to Marines — one possible response to the objectionable images and content that troops are posting to the Web. But military law experts say the endeavor is a legal minefield.
In a May 29 letter to Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., Gen. Jim Amos denounced Facebook pages and other social media postings that “denigrate women in the Marine Corps.”
“We share your indignation; I am responding on behalf of the Secretary of Defense,” he wrote. “These depictions are neither official Marine Corps communications nor reflective of the U.S. Marine Corps’ sentiments toward women.”
Responding to a May 8 letter from Speier, who demanded the Corps address popular “humor pages” where Marines post offensive or demeaning images of women, Amos said the service is examining the possibility of making certain websites off-limits to Marines — just as it does with local businesses the Corps determines are engaging in illegal or abusive practices. He said the Corps is looking into Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board Procedures to determine if such a course of action would be legal and effective.

via Military law experts: Marines may not be able to ban troops from offensive sites | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com.
While it is pretty easy to look at some sites and cry “Oh, that’s horrible, and no Marine (or other servicemember) should belong to that!” – it’s a very, very short journey from there to a situation where the powers that be become in effect the thought police.
Today is is sites that are “misogynistic” or “degrading” to women. Well, who exactly determines what is misogynistic, or degrading? The chain of command? Representative Speier? The Women Studies Department of Columbia University?
And how long until other undesirable sites find their way to the list? Oathkeepers? Tea Party? Mens rights groups? Gina Elise and her pin up calendars for veterans?
Are the Marines going to punish members merely for reading certain materiel, or only censure those who actually post items prejudicial to good order and discipline?