Contemptuous Speech Against the President

[mudwhistle]

A question was raised during an EEO class today about talking politics in the shop. Our instructor told us that as Federal Employees we weren't allowed to criticize the President's policies. I decided to look it up.

The current provision of military law criminalizing disrespectful
criticism of the President, and other specified civilian
officials and institutions, is contained in Article 88, UCMJ.
That article provides:

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.​

Military retirees fall under the article under some conditions. The only exception seems to be political conversations.

Potential Defenses

Political Discussion

Historically, certain forms of political discussions, although critical of the President, have been considered beyond the reach of military law. To prosecute an officer or soldier for engaging in a purely political conversation was considered “inquisitorial and beneath the dignity of the [g]overnment.” This exception has not always been honored in practice, however. Indeed, the political discussion defense has been interpreted so narrowly that commentators have questioned its very existence.

The current Manual continues this limitation on Article 88’s scope stating: “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.” Unfortunately, the Manual fails to define the parameters of a “political discussion.”

Nobody's ever been convicted for bad-mouthing the President. They have to have done it in an official capacity it seems for it to stick. Freedom of speech allows a member of Congress or civilian to criticize the President where as an active duty member or retiree cannot.

Harry Reid called President Bush a loser once. If he had been ex-military and receiving a pension he could have been nailed under Article 88 of the UCMJ especially because he was in an official capacity when he said it. It's still kind of shaky it seems.

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

Link

Article 88

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The UCMJ only applies to military, not federal employees. Article 88 applies only to commissioned officers. I am pretty sure he is full of it, and bet he personally had no problem ripping Bush's policies.

 

[The Infidel]

I dont know.... ask the guy who called Biden "Bite me"


I think its BS, but I wouldnt do it... just b/c he is your boss after all.

In private I'd be throwing darts at a pic of him though... fuk him!

 

[Cecilie1200]

A question was raised during an EEO class today about talking politics in the shop. Our instructor told us that as Federal Employees we weren't allowed to criticize the President's policies. I decided to look it up.

The current provision of military law criminalizing disrespectful
criticism of the President, and other specified civilian
officials and institutions, is contained in Article 88, UCMJ.
That article provides:

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.​

Military retirees fall under the article under some conditions. The only exception seems to be political conversations.

Potential Defenses

Political Discussion

Historically, certain forms of political discussions, although critical of the President, have been considered beyond the reach of military law. To prosecute an officer or soldier for engaging in a purely political conversation was considered “inquisitorial and beneath the dignity of the [g]overnment.” This exception has not always been honored in practice, however. Indeed, the political discussion defense has been interpreted so narrowly that commentators have questioned its very existence.

The current Manual continues this limitation on Article 88’s scope stating: “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.” Unfortunately, the Manual fails to define the parameters of a “political discussion.”

Nobody's ever been convicted for bad-mouthing the President. They have to have done it in an official capacity it seems for it to stick. Freedom of speech allows a member of Congress or civilian to criticize the President where as an active duty member or retiree cannot.

Harry Reid called President Bush a loser once. If he had been ex-military and receiving a pension he could have been nailed under Article 88 of the UCMJ especially because he was in an official capacity when he said it. It's still kind of shaky it seems.

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

Link

Article 88

The way it was explained to me, away back when I was working for the Post Office, is that I can say anything I want in - for example - a conversation over lunch with my fellow employees. What I can't do is - also for example - go out on a mail route in a uniform and badmouth the President to the people I encounter. In the first case, I'm just speaking as a private citizen; in the second, I'm speaking as a representative of the Post Office, in which case the President is, in effect, my boss.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They might be able to fire you, if they can show that you did it in an official capacity, but they cannot prosecute you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They might be able to fire you, if they can show that you did it in an official capacity, but they cannot prosecute you.

Dunno. I wasn't paying much attention to the possible repercussions, since I would never be so tacky and unprofessional as to badmouth my boss or my employer while in an official capacity.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A question was raised during an EEO class today about talking politics in the shop. Our instructor told us that as Federal Employees we weren't allowed to criticize the President's policies. I decided to look it up.

The current provision of military law criminalizing disrespectful
criticism of the President, and other specified civilian
officials and institutions, is contained in Article 88, UCMJ.
That article provides:

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.​

Military retirees fall under the article under some conditions. The only exception seems to be political conversations.

Potential Defenses

Political Discussion

Historically, certain forms of political discussions, although critical of the President, have been considered beyond the reach of military law. To prosecute an officer or soldier for engaging in a purely political conversation was considered “inquisitorial and beneath the dignity of the [g]overnment.” This exception has not always been honored in practice, however. Indeed, the political discussion defense has been interpreted so narrowly that commentators have questioned its very existence.

The current Manual continues this limitation on Article 88’s scope stating: “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.” Unfortunately, the Manual fails to define the parameters of a “political discussion.”

Nobody's ever been convicted for bad-mouthing the President. They have to have done it in an official capacity it seems for it to stick. Freedom of speech allows a member of Congress or civilian to criticize the President where as an active duty member or retiree cannot.

Harry Reid called President Bush a loser once. If he had been ex-military and receiving a pension he could have been nailed under Article 88 of the UCMJ especially because he was in an official capacity when he said it. It's still kind of shaky it seems.

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

Link

Article 88

Only applies to commissioned Officers. Enlisted are not covered by that UCMJ article.

 

[mudwhistle]

A question was raised during an EEO class today about talking politics in the shop. Our instructor told us that as Federal Employees we weren't allowed to criticize the President's policies. I decided to look it up.

The current provision of military law criminalizing disrespectful
criticism of the President, and other specified civilian
officials and institutions, is contained in Article 88, UCMJ.
That article provides:

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.​

Military retirees fall under the article under some conditions. The only exception seems to be political conversations.

Potential Defenses

Political Discussion

Historically, certain forms of political discussions, although critical of the President, have been considered beyond the reach of military law. To prosecute an officer or soldier for engaging in a purely political conversation was considered “inquisitorial and beneath the dignity of the [g]overnment.” This exception has not always been honored in practice, however. Indeed, the political discussion defense has been interpreted so narrowly that commentators have questioned its very existence.

The current Manual continues this limitation on Article 88’s scope stating: “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.” Unfortunately, the Manual fails to define the parameters of a “political discussion.”

Nobody's ever been convicted for bad-mouthing the President. They have to have done it in an official capacity it seems for it to stick. Freedom of speech allows a member of Congress or civilian to criticize the President where as an active duty member or retiree cannot.

Harry Reid called President Bush a loser once. If he had been ex-military and receiving a pension he could have been nailed under Article 88 of the UCMJ especially because he was in an official capacity when he said it. It's still kind of shaky it seems.

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

Link

Article 88

Only applies to commissioned Officers. Enlisted are not covered by that UCMJ article.

Actually I read that Enlisted are included. It all seems to be a bit vague. Even the defenses are a bit vague because it doesn't go into detail on what is considered political discussion.

I know that while active duty I was prohibited from saying anything derogatory about President Clinton while acting in an official capacity....and a policy letter was released shortly after Obama assumed the duties of POTUS stating that federal employees may be punished under articles in the UCMJ.

It all seems a bit fuzzy. I was hoping somebody would be able to clarify it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A question was raised during an EEO class today about talking politics in the shop. Our instructor told us that as Federal Employees we weren't allowed to criticize the President's policies. I decided to look it up.



Military retirees fall under the article under some conditions. The only exception seems to be political conversations.



Nobody's ever been convicted for bad-mouthing the President. They have to have done it in an official capacity it seems for it to stick. Freedom of speech allows a member of Congress or civilian to criticize the President where as an active duty member or retiree cannot.

Harry Reid called President Bush a loser once. If he had been ex-military and receiving a pension he could have been nailed under Article 88 of the UCMJ especially because he was in an official capacity when he said it. It's still kind of shaky it seems.

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

Link

Article 88

Only applies to commissioned Officers. Enlisted are not covered by that UCMJ article.

Actually I read that Enlisted are included. It all seems to be a big vague. Even the defenses are a bit vague because it doesn't go into detail on what is considered political discussion.

I know that while active duty I was prohibited from saying anything derogatory about President Clinton while acting in an official capacity....and a policy letter was released shortly after Obama assumed the duties of POTUS stating that federal employees may be punished under articles in the UCMJ.

It all seems a bit fuzzy. I was hoping somebody would be able to clarify it.

Enlisted would be charged with article 134 the catch all article. Your article is clear it ONLY applies to COMMISSIONED OFFICERS. There are several articles like that.

 

[daveman]

Only one officer has been court-martialed for violating Article 88:

Since the UCMJ was enacted in 1950 only a single known
court-martial has occurred pursuant to Article 88.28 In United
States v. Howe, an Army Lieutenant was convicted for carrying
a sign during an antiwar demonstration that read “Let’s Have
More Than A Choice Between Petty Ignorant Facists In 1968”
on one side and “End Johnson’s Facist Aggression In Viet
Nam” on the other side.29 Lieutenant Howe did not participate
in organizing the demonstration, but merely joined it after it
began.30 During the half-hour demonstration, Howe was offduty,
in civilian clothes, and no one at the demonstration knew
of his military affiliation.31 Howe came to the Army’s attention
only because a gas station attendant, who Howe had asked for
directions, spotted the lieutenant’s sign and an Army sticker on
his vehicle and subsequently notified the local military police.32​

Article 88 does apply to retirees:

One large and significant body of individuals that
are not beyond the reach of this provision is retirees, however.
Article 2(a)(4) provides that the military has UCMJ jurisdiction
over “[r]etired members of a regular component who are entitled
to pay.” Albeit only one known court-martial of a military
retiree under Article 88 or its predecessors exists,41 and courtsmartial
of retirees are rare and require special permission,42 no
legal prohibition exists precluding application of Article 88 to
these members of our land and naval forces.43​

Regarding enlisted:

Id. In 1956 the word “commissioned” was inserted before officer “for clarity.” 10 U.S.C.A. § 888, at 407 (West 1998). Because Article 88 applies only to commissioned
officers, legal commentators are split as to whether enlisted service members may be charged under other articles for contemptuous words. Compare CHARLES
A. SHANOR & L. LYNN HOGUE, MILITARY LAW IN A NUTSHELL 85 (2d ed. 1996) (“imilar conduct by enlisted personnel and warrant officers can be sanctioned under
other Articles such as Article 134 (service-discrediting conduct), Article 89 (disrespect), and Article 91 (insubordination).”) with Kester, supra note 6, at 1735 (“Of
very questionable legality has been the Army’s occasional resort to the general article to punish enlisted men, whom Congress in 1950 exempted from Article 88, for
statements disrespectful of the President.”); id. at 1735 n.239 (noting that military case law holds “that the general article cannot be used to avoid proving an essential
element of a crime dealt with in a specific article of the UCMJ.”) and Brown, supra at 102-3 (noting that unlike an officer, “the enlisted soldier enjoys the same rights
as his civilian brethren with regard to using contemptuous words towards high-level civilian authority.””) and ROBERT S. RIVKIN, GI RIGHTS AND ARMY JUSTICE: THE
DRAFTEE’S GUIDE TO MILITARY LIFE AND LAW 111 (1970) (“f an enlisted man called the President an abusive name, it would probably amount to a deprivation of his
constitutional free speech rights to punish him for it.”). In 1962, an Army private was convicted of violating Article 134 after using obscene language with respect to
President Kennedy. Kester, supra note 6, at 1735 n.239.​

I can't find the citation for the Army private convicted at the moment. Will get it later.

 

[mudwhistle]

The problem I have with EEO is they tend to stir up shit.

They give people ideas.

We can't talk about politics in the shop anymore because some dick will report us. The truth doesn't matter now. Anyone who's tired of hearing about how Obama's screwed the pooch can go to EEO and report it....saying his sensitivity has been breached. That racism is rampant in the shop.

 

[Sarah G]

A question was raised during an EEO class today about talking politics in the shop. Our instructor told us that as Federal Employees we weren't allowed to criticize the President's policies. I decided to look it up.

The current provision of military law criminalizing disrespectful
criticism of the President, and other specified civilian
officials and institutions, is contained in Article 88, UCMJ.
That article provides:

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.​

Military retirees fall under the article under some conditions. The only exception seems to be political conversations.

Potential Defenses

Political Discussion

Historically, certain forms of political discussions, although critical of the President, have been considered beyond the reach of military law. To prosecute an officer or soldier for engaging in a purely political conversation was considered “inquisitorial and beneath the dignity of the [g]overnment.” This exception has not always been honored in practice, however. Indeed, the political discussion defense has been interpreted so narrowly that commentators have questioned its very existence.

The current Manual continues this limitation on Article 88’s scope stating: “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.” Unfortunately, the Manual fails to define the parameters of a “political discussion.”

Nobody's ever been convicted for bad-mouthing the President. They have to have done it in an official capacity it seems for it to stick. Freedom of speech allows a member of Congress or civilian to criticize the President where as an active duty member or retiree cannot.

Harry Reid called President Bush a loser once. If he had been ex-military and receiving a pension he could have been nailed under Article 88 of the UCMJ especially because he was in an official capacity when he said it. It's still kind of shaky it seems.

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

Link

Article 88

Things have gotten out of hand, I'd say since Reagan. There needs to be some rule in place. You have Generals shooting their mouths off attempting to politicize the military. I don't like partisan newscasters either. They shouldn't be on the air with the goal being to inflame, they should just do their freaking job and report the news, without any comment regarding their opinion.

Leave the opinion pages to their papers and online organizations.

 

[rightwinger]

A question was raised during an EEO class today about talking politics in the shop. Our instructor told us that as Federal Employees we weren't allowed to criticize the President's policies. I decided to look it up.

The current provision of military law criminalizing disrespectful
criticism of the President, and other specified civilian
officials and institutions, is contained in Article 88, UCMJ.
That article provides:

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.​

Military retirees fall under the article under some conditions. The only exception seems to be political conversations.

Potential Defenses

Political Discussion

Historically, certain forms of political discussions, although critical of the President, have been considered beyond the reach of military law. To prosecute an officer or soldier for engaging in a purely political conversation was considered “inquisitorial and beneath the dignity of the [g]overnment.” This exception has not always been honored in practice, however. Indeed, the political discussion defense has been interpreted so narrowly that commentators have questioned its very existence.

The current Manual continues this limitation on Article 88’s scope stating: “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.” Unfortunately, the Manual fails to define the parameters of a “political discussion.”

Nobody's ever been convicted for bad-mouthing the President. They have to have done it in an official capacity it seems for it to stick. Freedom of speech allows a member of Congress or civilian to criticize the President where as an active duty member or retiree cannot.

Harry Reid called President Bush a loser once. If he had been ex-military and receiving a pension he could have been nailed under Article 88 of the UCMJ especially because he was in an official capacity when he said it. It's still kind of shaky it seems.

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

Link

Article 88

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

As a private citizen you are free to bad-mouth the President. If you do so in your capacity as a federal employee, you can be disciplined.

Overall, as a general rule, it is wise not to talk sex, politics or religion on the job

 

[mudwhistle]

Only applies to commissioned Officers. Enlisted are not covered by that UCMJ article.

Actually I read that Enlisted are included. It all seems to be a big vague. Even the defenses are a bit vague because it doesn't go into detail on what is considered political discussion.

I know that while active duty I was prohibited from saying anything derogatory about President Clinton while acting in an official capacity....and a policy letter was released shortly after Obama assumed the duties of POTUS stating that federal employees may be punished under articles in the UCMJ.

It all seems a bit fuzzy. I was hoping somebody would be able to clarify it.

Enlisted would be charged with article 134 the catch all article. Your article is clear it ONLY applies to COMMISSIONED OFFICERS. There are several articles like that.

I'm not really wanting to get into a discussion on which article covers it so much as if what the instructor said was correct.

Can a federal employee be fired or punished for discussing in public opposition to the policies of Congress or the President?

 

[mudwhistle]

A question was raised during an EEO class today about talking politics in the shop. Our instructor told us that as Federal Employees we weren't allowed to criticize the President's policies. I decided to look it up.

The current provision of military law criminalizing disrespectful
criticism of the President, and other specified civilian
officials and institutions, is contained in Article 88, UCMJ.
That article provides:

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.​

Military retirees fall under the article under some conditions. The only exception seems to be political conversations.

Potential Defenses

Political Discussion

Historically, certain forms of political discussions, although critical of the President, have been considered beyond the reach of military law. To prosecute an officer or soldier for engaging in a purely political conversation was considered “inquisitorial and beneath the dignity of the [g]overnment.” This exception has not always been honored in practice, however. Indeed, the political discussion defense has been interpreted so narrowly that commentators have questioned its very existence.

The current Manual continues this limitation on Article 88’s scope stating: “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.” Unfortunately, the Manual fails to define the parameters of a “political discussion.”

Nobody's ever been convicted for bad-mouthing the President. They have to have done it in an official capacity it seems for it to stick. Freedom of speech allows a member of Congress or civilian to criticize the President where as an active duty member or retiree cannot.

Harry Reid called President Bush a loser once. If he had been ex-military and receiving a pension he could have been nailed under Article 88 of the UCMJ especially because he was in an official capacity when he said it. It's still kind of shaky it seems.

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

Link

Article 88

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

As a private citizen you are free to bad-mouth the President. If you do so in your capacity as a federal employee, you can be disciplined.

Overall, as a general rule, it is wise not to talk sex, politics or religion on the job

But I'm sure you saw fit to do so while Bush was President.

And talking religion on the job is not a crime. If you attempt to make a law that says so you'd be going against the constitution.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I didn't think anybody was allowed to criticize the Obamster. Seems Jindhal got a good lashing over Obama not wanting to hear him complaining about anything.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As a civilian Federal Employee... the taxpayer is your boss. It is different in the military.

 

[mudwhistle]

I didn't think anybody was allowed to criticize the Obamster. Seems Jindhal got a good lashing over Obama not wanting to hear him complaining about anything.

But all of the Democrats that accused Bush of lying and killing innocent civilians in the dead of night get a pass.

 

[rightwinger]

A question was raised during an EEO class today about talking politics in the shop. Our instructor told us that as Federal Employees we weren't allowed to criticize the President's policies. I decided to look it up.



Military retirees fall under the article under some conditions. The only exception seems to be political conversations.



Nobody's ever been convicted for bad-mouthing the President. They have to have done it in an official capacity it seems for it to stick. Freedom of speech allows a member of Congress or civilian to criticize the President where as an active duty member or retiree cannot.

Harry Reid called President Bush a loser once. If he had been ex-military and receiving a pension he could have been nailed under Article 88 of the UCMJ especially because he was in an official capacity when he said it. It's still kind of shaky it seems.

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

Link

Article 88

So was the instructor full of it or was she telling it like it is. Are Federal employees prohibited from bad-mouthing the President and his policies?

As a private citizen you are free to bad-mouth the President. If you do so in your capacity as a federal employee, you can be disciplined.

Overall, as a general rule, it is wise not to talk sex, politics or religion on the job

But I'm sure you saw fit to do so while Bush was President.

And talking religion on the job is not a crime. If you attempt to make a law that says so you'd be going against the constitution.

No law...just common sense

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually I read that Enlisted are included. It all seems to be a big vague. Even the defenses are a bit vague because it doesn't go into detail on what is considered political discussion.

I know that while active duty I was prohibited from saying anything derogatory about President Clinton while acting in an official capacity....and a policy letter was released shortly after Obama assumed the duties of POTUS stating that federal employees may be punished under articles in the UCMJ.

It all seems a bit fuzzy. I was hoping somebody would be able to clarify it.

Enlisted would be charged with article 134 the catch all article. Your article is clear it ONLY applies to COMMISSIONED OFFICERS. There are several articles like that.

I'm not really wanting to get into a discussion on which article covers it so much as if what the instructor said was correct.

Can a federal employee be fired or punished for discussing in public opposition to the policies of Congress or the President?

Yes.