Marine's Facebook page tests military rules

[High_Gravity]

1) Is there a compelling government interest in prohibiting service members from expressing their views, or from prohibiting them from expressing anything that this Marine expressed?

2) Are the rules narrowly tailored to achieve those goals?

3) Is this the least restrictive means possible to achieve those goals?


I'm not sure that I can say yes to all three of those criteria. Also, to the OP, saying that the right to bear arms disappears when you're in the military is absolutely absurd. In case you didn't notice, the military carries alot of weapons, which civilians don't normally have access to. That was a really stupid thing to say. Rights are rights. They remain rights, even in the course of military service. You do not lose the right to free speech. That's why DADT was ruled unconstitutional. You do not lose the right to the press. You can watch or read any news source you want. You do not lose your rights. That's a very ignorant thing to say.

Clearly you never served or you wouldn't have called me ignorant.

soldiers don't own those guns. personal fire arms are not allowed on base and knives must be small.

If we had free speech, this wouldn't be an issue.

and so on ans so forth.


I suggest you don't guess in the future when dealing with people that know, since they lived it.

At least 2 other Vets have posted, none of them corrected me b/c they know I'm right.

Actually that depends my man, at Travis Air Force Base my friend was allowed to have his guns but he had to keep them at the base armory with security forces when he lived on post. If you live off base you can have your own fire arms but you have to follow the rules of whatever state you are in.

 

[JWBooth]

Fuck 'em. They signed up, now they gotta dance to the fiddler's tune.
Should have known better.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yes. The Oath of Enlistment requires that service members "obey the orders of the President of the United States." Publically expressing intent to violate the Oath is prejudicial to good order and discipline, a necessity in the military.

Close. The question would probably be whether there is a compelling government interest in maintaining "good order and discipline" in the military. And yes, of course there is.

2) Are the rules narrowly tailored to achieve those goals?

Yes, the prohibitions do not prohibit private speech, only public speech as a service member and prohibits disobeying lawful orders and intent to and solicitation to others to disobey lawful orders.

This is where I question whether the criteria are met. Making criminal actions that disrupt "good order and discipline" is a rather vague law. Also, the UCMJ applies to all service members at all times, including within the privacy of their own homes. The UCMJ prohibits marital infidelity, for example (at least it used to, I think that was recently repealed). This eliminates any distinction between "private" and "public" speech. When we consider the fact that we're talking about someone's facebook page, and not something they said or did while on duty, the issue of "private" speech becomes even more troublesome. An example of a narrowly tailored law would be the article that specifically prohibits service members from making derogatory comments regarding the President, the governor of their state (for National Guard), or the head of state in any country in which they are stationed. As pointed out in the OP, the "good conduct" article is really little more than a catch-all. As such, it cannot really be seen as narrowly tailored toward a specific goal.

3) Is this the least restrictive means possible to achieve those goals?

Yes.

I'm also a little unsure that this criteria would be met, either. Possibly. But like I said, we're talking about a facebook page. What restrictions exist to the applicability of these laws, regarding a service member's speech? I'm not seeing any, if they can be applied to a person's activities on facebook.

As part of their duties...which is not an exercise in the right to bear arms.

Actually, it is. In order to enlist, you have to have the legal right to bear arms. If, for example, you are legally prohibited from possessing a weapon as a result of a criminal history, you are not eligible for enlistment.