Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested

[CurveLight]

This is an interesting discussion. I'm fairly certain if a teacher or a cop or a postal worker, etc. made those comments, they'd be fired. Maybe not prosecuted; but certainly discharged.

But what I find most interesting, is that rap music is even considered protected speech. If someone says, "i'm going to blow your face off muthafucka", it is a terroristic threat. However, if they SING it, it's not. Baffling.

However when representing yourself as a member of the military and saying these things it is no longer considered protected speech. It is considered mutiny at the extreme edge and derelection of duty/failure to maintain good order and dicipline at the least.

He didn't do the song to represent the military. He did it to represent himself in protest for being forced to stay in the military a full year past his contract.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

No. We will focus on the issue at hand. The fact that you think free speech should be allowed in the Military. The fact that it wil never be seems to escape you because apparently before you were sworn in...you didn't read the contract you signed.

You may have taken an oath and then were not allowed to serve for whatever reason but that doesn't make you an expert on military life or the justice system they have in place. To prevent any incidences contrary to good order and dicipline within the ranks they have the UCMJ. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevent because you and the rest of the civilians in the U.S. are powerless to change it.

 

[mudwhistle]

After learning the Military reneged on it's contract to allow Spc Hall out of the Army after serving 4 years he wrote a protest song containing violent lyrics. In response, the military arrested him. Stop Loss has been a quiet thunder for quite a few years. For those who don't know, Soldiers face the ultimate of morose ironies. They voluntarily offer to Sacrifice their lives to defend the Constitution but they themselves have to foreit the Constitution in the process. The UCMJ is the supreme law of their land, not the Constitution. They do not have Freedom of the Press, Expression, or Speech. So the question is this: Should those who Sacrifice their lives defending Free Speech be prosecuted for exercising Free Speech?
Soldier at US base jailed for angry rap song - NewsFlash - al.com

You give up some of your rights when you enlist.....or didn't you know that?

Leveling threats against your chain of command is a UCMJ offense.

Oh....a little side note....it appears after Ft Hood that these threats need to be taken seriously from now on.

Charges filed against Hall, of South Carolina, on Dec. 17, a week after he was jailed, say his threats weren't just confined to his rap recording. The charging document said he also told soldiers he would "go on a rampage" and that he "was planning on shooting the brigade and battalion commanders."

 

[PatekPhilippe]

This is an interesting discussion. I'm fairly certain if a teacher or a cop or a postal worker, etc. made those comments, they'd be fired. Maybe not prosecuted; but certainly discharged.

But what I find most interesting, is that rap music is even considered protected speech. If someone says, "i'm going to blow your face off muthafucka", it is a terroristic threat. However, if they SING it, it's not. Baffling.

However when representing yourself as a member of the military and saying these things it is no longer considered protected speech. It is considered mutiny at the extreme edge and derelection of duty/failure to maintain good order and dicipline at the least.

He didn't do the song to represent the military. He did it to represent himself in protest for being forced to stay in the military a full year past his contract.

Irrelevent. He is still subject to the UCMJ. It clearly states in the contract he signed that "during times or war or any situation deemed necessary as such by the Preident of the United States the service obligation incurred by you can be indefinately extended."

 

[Liability]

Charges filed against Hall, of South Carolina, on Dec. 17, a week after he was jailed, say his threats weren't just confined to his rap recording. The charging document said he also told soldiers he would "go on a rampage" and that he "was planning on shooting the brigade and battalion commanders."

That's not protected speech.

No. It's not. Nor should it be -- in or out of the military.

Thanks for sharing some needed common sense.

 

[CurveLight]

No. We will focus on the issue at hand. The fact that you think free speech should be allowed in the Military. The fact that it wil never be seems to escape you because apparently before you were sworn in...you didn't read the contract you signed.

You may have taken an oath and then were not allowed to serve for whatever reason but that doesn't make you an expert on military life or the justice system they have in place. To prevent any incidences contrary to good order and dicipline within the ranks they have the UCMJ. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevent because you and the rest of the civilians in the U.S. are powerless to change it.

I'm a Combat Vet so I wasn't simply sworn in. I also have not stated a position on this issue but just posted an article and ask for feed back on it. Please don't ascribe an argument to me I have not made. The whole thing about "not reading reading" the contract is pretty disingenuous too. Maybe things changed a lot but when I went through the process we were not given the chance to read everything. Also, as many of us were just out of high school, these issues were not exactly at the forefront of our minds. Look, all of this is just a distraction from the OP. You have made you position clear and from what I gather you don't support Freedom of Speech. Is that correct?

 

[mudwhistle]

Charges filed against Hall, of South Carolina, on Dec. 17, a week after he was jailed, say his threats weren't just confined to his rap recording. The charging document said he also told soldiers he would "go on a rampage" and that he "was planning on shooting the brigade and battalion commanders."

That's not protected speech.

That is hearsay.

It's also 'Probable-cause'.

 

[CurveLight]

Charges filed against Hall, of South Carolina, on Dec. 17, a week after he was jailed, say his threats weren't just confined to his rap recording. The charging document said he also told soldiers he would "go on a rampage" and that he "was planning on shooting the brigade and battalion commanders."

That's not protected speech.

No. It's not. Nor should it be -- in or out of the military.

Thanks for sharing some needed common sense.

Those statements are hearsay and NOT in the song he was arrested for.

 

[Liability]

Charges filed against Hall, of South Carolina, on Dec. 17, a week after he was jailed, say his threats weren't just confined to his rap recording. The charging document said he also told soldiers he would "go on a rampage" and that he "was planning on shooting the brigade and battalion commanders."

That's not protected speech.

That is hearsay.

A charging document is not hearsay. It's the accusation.

Of course it has to be proved. And how it gets proved WILL entail finding somebody to quote whatever it is he allegedly said.

If you thought you were making any kind of worthwhile point, you were mistaken.

I'll illustrate that in another way. I presume that even you agree that a citizen (or any person here in the USA) has no "'free speech right' to make a death threat against the President." If some asshole goes ahead and makes such a threat, out loud, before a bunch of witnesses and gets reported to the proper authorities, would it be improper to arrest his ass? The only correct answer is: "no."

If he gets charged (whether by the original complaint or by a subsequent indictment) his words may get quoted IN such charging documents. That's ok. In that setting, quoting him is not "hearsay." That's NOT what "hearsay" even means. The charging document merely serves to inform the accused of what he is accused of doing. It would be difficult to do so without quoting his words when the words themselves constitute the criminal act.

 

[Liability]

That's not protected speech.

No. It's not. Nor should it be -- in or out of the military.

Thanks for sharing some needed common sense.

Those statements are hearsay and NOT in the song he was arrested for.

It doesn't have to be in the song. If he was quoted as having said those words, then he is properly charged with a crime. Where the mere saying of a threat is a criminal act, it is necessary to QUOTE the defendant in order to properly charge him.

You are failing to understand what "hearsay" even means, in any event.

 

[CurveLight]

However when representing yourself as a member of the military and saying these things it is no longer considered protected speech. It is considered mutiny at the extreme edge and derelection of duty/failure to maintain good order and dicipline at the least.

He didn't do the song to represent the military. He did it to represent himself in protest for being forced to stay in the military a full year past his contract.

Irrelevent. He is still subject to the UCMJ. It clearly states in the contract he signed that "during times or war or any situation deemed necessary as such by the Preident of the United States the service obligation incurred by you can be indefinately extended."

He is honoring that as he has not gone awol.

 

[Full-Auto]

That's not protected speech.

No. It's not. Nor should it be -- in or out of the military.

Thanks for sharing some needed common sense.

Those statements are hearsay and NOT in the song he was arrested for.

Hall denounces the Army for the policy used to keep thousands of soldiers in the ranks beyond their scheduled dates

Regardless of feelings. This is insubordination.

 

[MIPS]

"Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested"

See UCMJ... soldiers don't have "free speech", 'nuff said, next case.

 

[uscitizen]

Stop Loss is and was pure garbage and should not be allowed unless the USA herself is in immediate peril.

 

[noose4]

After learning the Military reneged on it's contract to allow Spc Hall out of the Army after serving 4 years he wrote a protest song containing violent lyrics. In response, the military arrested him. Stop Loss has been a quiet thunder for quite a few years. For those who don't know, Soldiers face the ultimate of morose ironies. They voluntarily offer to Sacrifice their lives to defend the Constitution but they themselves have to foreit the Constitution in the process. The UCMJ is the supreme law of their land, not the Constitution. They do not have Freedom of the Press, Expression, or Speech. So the question is this: Should those who Sacrifice their lives defending Free Speech be prosecuted for exercising Free Speech?
Soldier at US base jailed for angry rap song - NewsFlash - al.com

I think the current stop loss situation sucks but you know upon signing the contract that your duty may not end upon the initial release date from active duty that you are given, upon discharge you are placed in the inactive reserve for the remainder of your obligation and can be called back to active duty when necessary and when in the military certain rights afforded to civilians are given up by those who serve.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

No. We will focus on the issue at hand. The fact that you think free speech should be allowed in the Military. The fact that it wil never be seems to escape you because apparently before you were sworn in...you didn't read the contract you signed.

You may have taken an oath and then were not allowed to serve for whatever reason but that doesn't make you an expert on military life or the justice system they have in place. To prevent any incidences contrary to good order and dicipline within the ranks they have the UCMJ. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevent because you and the rest of the civilians in the U.S. are powerless to change it.

I'm a Combat Vet so I wasn't simply sworn in. I also have not stated a position on this issue but just posted an article and ask for feed back on it. Please don't ascribe an argument to me I have not made. The whole thing about "not reading reading" the contract is pretty disingenuous too. Maybe things changed a lot but when I went through the process we were not given the chance to read everything. Also, as many of us were just out of high school, these issues were not exactly at the forefront of our minds. Look, all of this is just a distraction from the OP. You have made you position clear and from what I gather you don't support Freedom of Speech. Is that correct?

Oh....you're a combat vet now....Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States to all Americans. When the Oath of Enlistment is taken after reading and signing the enlistment contract you are NO LONGER subject to the Constitution. You are now, as stated in the contract, subject to the UCMJ...period. You right to free speech is severly curtailed for the good order and dicipline of the Armed Forces of the United States. That's the bottom line.

 

[CurveLight]

No. It's not. Nor should it be -- in or out of the military.

Thanks for sharing some needed common sense.

Those statements are hearsay and NOT in the song he was arrested for.

It doesn't have to be in the song. If he was quoted as having said those words, then he is properly charged with a crime. Where the mere saying of a threat is a criminal act, it is necessary to QUOTE the defendant in order to properly charge him.

You are failing to understand what "hearsay" even means, in any event.

You just admitted as of right now those statements have not been proven. That means they are currently hearsay. That was also not the main reason he was charged because it was the song. If it turns out he did make those statements in a sincere manner he should be removed and placed in psychiatric care for evaluation and treatment.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

He didn't do the song to represent the military. He did it to represent himself in protest for being forced to stay in the military a full year past his contract.

Irrelevent. He is still subject to the UCMJ. It clearly states in the contract he signed that "during times or war or any situation deemed necessary as such by the Preident of the United States the service obligation incurred by you can be indefinately extended."

He is honoring that as he has not gone awol.

When he began showing his rap vieo to his comrades on base he crossed the line. Did you read the article? Read what he said.

 

[CurveLight]

No. We will focus on the issue at hand. The fact that you think free speech should be allowed in the Military. The fact that it wil never be seems to escape you because apparently before you were sworn in...you didn't read the contract you signed.

You may have taken an oath and then were not allowed to serve for whatever reason but that doesn't make you an expert on military life or the justice system they have in place. To prevent any incidences contrary to good order and dicipline within the ranks they have the UCMJ. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevent because you and the rest of the civilians in the U.S. are powerless to change it.

I'm a Combat Vet so I wasn't simply sworn in. I also have not stated a position on this issue but just posted an article and ask for feed back on it. Please don't ascribe an argument to me I have not made. The whole thing about "not reading reading" the contract is pretty disingenuous too. Maybe things changed a lot but when I went through the process we were not given the chance to read everything. Also, as many of us were just out of high school, these issues were not exactly at the forefront of our minds. Look, all of this is just a distraction from the OP. You have made you position clear and from what I gather you don't support Freedom of Speech. Is that correct?

Oh....you're a combat vet now....Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States to all Americans. When the Oath of Enlistment is taken after reading and signing the enlistment contract you are NO LONGER subject to the Constitution. You are now, as stated in the contract, subject to the UCMJ...period. You right to free speech is severly curtailed for the good order and dicipline of the Armed Forces of the United States. That's the bottom line.

I'm well aware the Constitution is forfeited. That's why I pointed it out in the OP.

 

[FA_Q2]

blu
soldiers are sheep for the oil companies and other large corporations. they know this when they sign up and that they are donating their birth rights to some CEOs cocaine & prostitutes fund.

Fuck you blu. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

colin
I'm sure all those enlisting in the US military know that once in, they trade in their Constitutional rights for the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Not really. As some have said there is very little actually written in that contract and kids fresh from high school have no idea what it means to give up those rights.

PatekPhilippe
Yes. Here's why. No one forced the soldier to volunteer and sign the contract of enlistment. He should have read the fine print.

And..

No. We will focus on the issue at hand. The fact that you think free speech should be allowed in the Military. The fact that it wil never be seems to escape you because apparently before you were sworn in...you didn't read the contract you signed.

I really hate that contract line and you hear it abused in the military all the time. Your so called contract says NOTHING of the sort about all the abuse and shit you have to take in the military and it is changed AT WILL by the military to mean whatever they want. The contract is only one page anyway and it is completely irrelevant.

As to the OP… NO military cannot have access to the protections of the constitution and almost everyone in the military understands this AND why it is necessary. In our jobs it is quite possible I could be ordering solders to die and unit cohesion and effectiveness depend directly on following those orders even if the solders know that it may kill them. You do NOT have the right to question orders and questions like that lead to others questioning those orders. On the other hand, stop loss is another story. I am not so sure they should be enacting stop loss unless they are so desperate that a draft is coming. People who are getting out then stop lossed make for terrible solders.