Shit.Army Regulation 530--1: Operations Security (OPSEC) (.pdf) restricts more than just blogs, however. Previous editions of the rules asked Army personnel to "consult with their immediate supervisor" before posting a document "that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum." The new version, in contrast, requires "an OPSEC review prior to publishing" anything -- from "web log (blog) postings" to comments on internet message boards, from resumes to letters home.
Failure to do so, the document adds, could result in a court-martial, or "administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action."
Last edited by Sanjaya (2007-05-02 17:19:02)
You sign away alot of your rights once you sign on the dotted line man!!oug wrote:
They can't do that! ...can they?
I think they did.oug wrote:
They can't do that! ...can they?
The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer
The is common sense suff that should have been done long ago. There are a lot of stupid soldiers that decide to talk about crap and it ends up educating the enemy on US military tactics, problems with military operations, weaknesses in US military policies, troop deployments,.....ATG wrote:
I think they did.oug wrote:
They can't do that! ...can they?The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer
It should, however, as long as the people aren't saying battle plans or stupid stuff like that. After all, soldiers are people of America, too.Major_Spittle wrote:
ATG wrote:
oug wrote:
...and the bill of rights never has applied to a soldier.
Superior Mind wrote:
O snap. Bullocks.
Not true. Even corporations have restrictions on what employees can say, they just aren't as strict as those on a soldier. Right to free speech doesn't guarantee that you can say what you like and keep you job, it just means that the worst a company can do is kick you out (or other penalties set out in a contract) and you can keep spouting the same shit.Major_Spittle wrote:
...................the bill of rights never has applied to a soldier.
No different than letters being censored from past wars. The army doesn't want information leaked out and blocking blogs is just one more way of keeping information secret and preventing that information from falling into the wrong hands.Major_Spittle wrote:
The is common sense suff that should have been done long ago. There are a lot of stupid soldiers that decide to talk about crap and it ends up educating the enemy on US military tactics, problems with military operations, weaknesses in US military policies, troop deployments,.....ATG wrote:
I think they did.oug wrote:
They can't do that! ...can they?The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer
This is the same reason the Media needs to get the hell out of Iraq and not be allowed to follow around our soldiers.
US military quote: "When you sign the line your ass is mine."
It is absolutely true, don't need freedom of speech cry-asses in the military. The military is not a social experiment, and the bill of rights never has applied to a soldier.
The US military is not a corporation and NO the bill of rights do not apply to a soldier. A superior in the military can give you a legal order that will end your life on the spot, so I ask you how the Bill of rights apply to a soldier in the US military.Bubbalo wrote:
Not true. Even corporations have restrictions on what employees can say, they just aren't as strict as those on a soldier. Right to free speech doesn't guarantee that you can say what you like and keep you job, it just means that the worst a company can do is kick you out (or other penalties set out in a contract) and you can keep spouting the same shit.Major_Spittle wrote:
...................the bill of rights never has applied to a soldier.
That's close, but not entirely correct. When a member of the Air Force sued to be allowed to wear his yarmulke while on duty, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment applies to members of the military forces. However, the Court also said it gives great deference to military decisions that infringe on First Amendment rights. So the First Amendment does apply, but its protections are weaker than outside the military.Major_Spittle wrote:
the bill of rights never has applied to a soldier.
That's a great quote: "The essence of military service is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service."Justice Rehnquist wrote:
Our review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society. The military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps. See, e. g., Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 300; Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 843-844 (1976) (POWELL, J., concurring); Parker v. Levy, supra, at 744. The essence of military service "is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service." Orloff v. Willoughby, supra, at 92.
These aspects of military life do not, of course, render entirely nugatory in the military context the guarantees of the First Amendment. See, e. g., Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 304. But "within the military community there is simply not the same [individual] autonomy as there is in the larger civilian community." Parker v. Levy, supra, at 751. In the context of the present case, when evaluating whether military needs justify a particular restriction on religiously motivated conduct, courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest. See Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 305; Orloff v. Willoughby, supra, 93-94. Not only are courts "`ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have,'" Chappell v. Wallace.
GOLDMAN v. WEINBERGER, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Last edited by san4 (2007-05-02 18:27:13)