Maybe the CHI-COMS aren’t always wrong?

You have to be the densest motherfucker outside of Federal Farmer's asshole.

Well, no, that's just a knee-jerk reaction.

You know what you're doing. It's the same play that people like FF and UA use, to always be ignorant, like Mike Johnson, of just about goddamned near everything going on around him except that, like Mike, you know full well what's going on. Acknowledging it, however, means possible culpability. Can't have that. Gotta be slickity.

I am so glad I stopped thinking of you as a reasonable human being years ago. I may have been cursed with thinking you had something of value to contribute.

You flatter me.
I'd rather not be thought of by you for the same reasons I'd rather not be thought of by David Duke.

Well, lemme put it another way, as someone who actually served in the military once: I never once in my time in service saw a single commander give a shit what horrendous things were said about a private citizen as long as it didn't embarrass the armed forces. One of the ensigns had a one of Perez Hilton's shitty photos about wishing Britney had died instead of Heath Ledger on Facebook and no one said boo about it.

I don't expect someone to blast a military official and keep their job, but some glorified podcasting twerp that only the most terminally online people knew existed before Sept 10th? Fuck no. And I'd have the same reaction if people were being kicked out for celebrating Fred Rogers' death too.

I wonder if some naval officer could have said Admiral Levine wasn't a real woman without repercussions....

I assume you meant to type Avril Levine?

If you're talking about some real admiral, I literally said in the post that talking shit about the chain in command was a no-go. That was never gonna fly under ANY commander-in-chief. Even legitimate criticism like Brett Crozier blasting the handling of COVID will get you fired if you do it publicly.

Did you think you won with this?

I dunno. It did help point out that there are all kinds of speech limitations in the military.

And you, having served, are an expert I assume?

Neither served nor claim to be an expert. But I do understand that there are significant speech restrictions in the military.

I wonder what exactly you do claim to be an expert in.

Would it matter either way?

well, that certainly explains a lot.

how is this example of outing someone any different than on civvie street? let alone talking shit about them in the work place?

I don't think you're gonna find much of a difference in the limitations of what Shiro could say in uniform vs what I can say whilst associated with my agency-at least in degree and in what company we're among.

If you are out of uniform and not professing to speak for the military there are very few restrictions the biggest being the one Shiro caveated in her initial post so you actually did nothing except show your ass. We already knew you are a transphobe. There was no need to rub it in.

But don’t take my word for it, here is the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice - basically the laws of the military):

https://ucmj.us/

Now in uniform is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Here is AR (Army Regulation) 670-1 The Proper Wear and Care of the Uniform. As you can see there are quite a few restrictions on what you can say and do in uniform.

https://home.army.mil/jackson/application/files/6616/1186/3536/AR_670-1.pdf

But that is only in uniform. Out of uniform you have basically the same rights as any civilian (except badmouthing your employer won’t get you fired, just fined and restricted).

Wait, you mean, Paladin's lack of knowledge has resulted in an inaccurate statement?

Hmm. Let's recap.

Shirogayne decries that people are being involuntarily separated from the military for speaking against Charlie Kirk.

I ask if it's merely expressing an opinion or endorsing his politically motivated murder.

Crosis asks if it makes a difference. He can't seem to differentiate the statements "I don't like X" and "I endorse X's murder." Chilling.

Shirogayne doesn't directly answer, but says she knows people who did worse and got away with it and that Kirk really wasn't all that significant anyway. She'd make a great defense attorney!

(Spoiler alert: I checked and...yep. Her complaint lacked context, even though she later admits she's okay with it.)

I point out that there have always been significant restrictions of speech in the military, to which Crosis asks if I'm an expert (as if that matters) and Shirogayne and Ancalagon contradict me by providing examples that support my statement. Not sure how I'm "showing my ass" since Anc demonstrates the truth of my claim!

Anyway, I checked into it, and in the last four years, a large number of people have been discharged for political extremism. It's commonplace in the military.

Endorsing political murder seems kinda politically extreme to me. Getting on social media to do it seems like very, very bad judgement for someone in uniform.

So, this doesn't seem like it's all that unusual or troubling an occurrence. Unless one thinks murder of one's political opponents isn't very serious.

Therefore, you all killed Charlie Kirk, and I'm calling ICE.


You know who actually rejoices in Charlie Kirk's death?
Right-wingers.
Using his carcass as a cudgel is like 1000 Christmases.
They've even written carols, for fuck's sakes.

Now do George Floyd.

*Stops stopwatch*
5 minutes? Could have shaved it to one, easily.

I'm pacing myself.

That’s a lie.

In uniform is an extremely important distinction. Unless these statements were made in uniform then the service members basically have the same free speech rights you do.

For instance a service member can’t walk and talk on a cell phone while in uniform but they totally can while in civies. Same for smoking while walking. Or just putting hands in your pockets.

Can’t do it in uniform but can anytime else even on post.

These are regulations about THE UNIFORM not the soldier.

Same things about the speech restrictions. With the obvious and called out multiple times now exception of insulting the chain of command the restrictions only apply IN UNIFORM.

How is this so hard to understand?

I even gave you links.

Seems like you might not be arguing in good faith here.

The many recent discharges for political extremism seem to contradict you.

And "basically" is doing some heavy lifting there. What are the exceptions?

(edit: I see you listed some. I'll respond.)

I've only claimed that people in the military have limitations on their speech that civilians do not. You provide even more examples.

Even out of uniform, the service member faces some restrictions. Can you tell me that espousing political extremism isn't one of them?

Okay.

Let’s see them so we can compare.

It’s basically because even ‘insulting the chain of command’ is an oversimplification. That’s not in the UCMJ which you would know if you had read the link I provided you.

Basically you aren’t allowed to foment mutiny even out of uniform and the best way to guarantee you don’t even get close to that line is to not insult anyone in your chain of command.

Better safe than sorry.

But yeah you can’t foment mutiny even out of uniform.

Thats the speech restriction OUT OF UNIFORM.

So, there isn't anything broader like going against Army or Navy values that can get you kicked out?

You mean fucking your buddy’s wife while he is deployed?

Yeah, that is a violation of the UCMJ and can get you in trouble.

Never heard of anyone Chaptered for it though. Usually just knocked down to Private and transferred.

But I thought we were talking about out of uniform speech restrictions tighter than civilians.

LOL.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1BVp8um2gn/?mibextid=wwXIfr

So I pretty much never go to Facebook except to check some groups that are only there.

Of course this comes up.

Keep in mind when he says shirt he means undershirt not your top.

The Army likes to fuck with soldiers by changing the color of undershirts. With BDUs they were brown undershirts. With ACUs they were tan.

I joined in the transition. I got issued ACUs, brown undershirts and a BDU Field Jacket.

CIF was mixing and matching to get rid of the old stock but my Brigade had ordered the transition to ACU only and so only tan undershirts.

Which is why I am very familiar with 670-1 because I memorized (and slightly modified) the section about undershirts and got away with brown shirts for over two years.

So you're good with the commies deciding what you can discuss and the qualifications needed? Interesting take.

You said the speech restrictions out of uniform extend only to mutiny. I'm asking are you sure you can't get thrown out for speech that's considered antithetical to service values?