ArmyStudyGuide.com Community

   

ArmyStudyGuide.com's Community is an Army Forum
 
ArmyStudyGuide.com    ArmyStudyGuide Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  General Community Discussion  Hop To Forums  General Discussion    Slander against the President
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Slander against the President
 Login/Join
 

posted
I have a soldier that needs to be counseled on his Blog. He has expressed his own personal views on President Bush. His blog is well known in the company and has raised some issues. Its a long story and I am not able to say much more for the sake of the soldier.

I need to know the exact article that states that as a soldier your not allowed to say anything negative or slanderous against the president. I have seen it once before so I know it exists just having trouble finding it.

I also would like to know if there are any regulations on soldiers having blogs.

Thanks for the help in advance, this issue has caught me completely off guard.
 
Posts: 7 | Registered: 28 August 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post


Career Counselor
Picture of ArmyReenlistment
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 6763 | Location: Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall | Registered: 31 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
A soldier DOES have the right to communicate with his Congressperson though and I encourage all soldiers to do so, particularly when you are not happy with the MANNER in which the war is being prosecuted. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees both have websites on the web which can be very helpful as well.


Those with the best information are most likely to succeed.

Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. ---Barry Goldwater
 
Posts: 16 | Location: California | Registered: 07 March 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
AR...I'd say that one or more of those Articles would apply.
 
Posts: 212 | Registered: 17 October 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ArmyReenlistment:
How about this one ....

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm13412.htm


Nope. Under 134-12, the United States as a nation has to be the subject of the statement; subordinate divisions (personnel, people, etc.) are not covered by this.


"What we see from our tower is for us to know and for you to find out."--The S-2
 
Posts: 599 | Location: Minnesota | Registered: 21 September 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post


Career Counselor
Picture of ArmyReenlistment
posted Hide Post
Ok, so which one does then? Confused


It's YOUR career! Take control of it before someone else does.
http://www.ArmyReenlistment.com
http://www.facebook.com/ArmyReenlistment
 
Posts: 6763 | Location: Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall | Registered: 31 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
Asside from 134-12 the only one that I can find that comes close to this is Article 88

quote:
“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 courtmartial
may direct.”
b. Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer
of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against
an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words
came to the knowledge of a person other than the
accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either
in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances
under which they were used.
[Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature,
add the following element]
( 5 ) That the accued was then present in the
State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of
the Governor or legislature concerned.


But like it says here, this only applies to officers. While your soldiers blog probably isn't in the best of taste, I honestly don't think that its against any reg.


CW3 Troy Ward
NETOPS OCT
Bronco 30E
National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA

Are you a signal warrant officer? http://www.signal-chief.com/
 
Posts: 607 | Location: National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA | Registered: 26 October 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post


USAR Career Counselor
Picture of Daddy Warcrimes
posted Hide Post
Try AR 600-20 para 5-3. Violating a regulation is Article 92.

He should not be using his position as a soldier to obtain political goals. The Army does not support nor oppose any politician and while representing the Army, we must not. I don't know how liberally this can be interpreted.

If his blog does not imply that the Army has taken an official position, it shouldn't violate this reg.

As far as policies against blogs in general; the prohibitions are for the purpose of maintaining OPSEC. What you may have heard of a blog ban pertains to blogs violating OPSEC.
 
Posts: 2867 | Location: 13th BN ARCD, AZ | Registered: 15 February 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
Short of his blog saying "The US Army thinks Bush needs to leave" (This is not an official endorsement by the US Army and may or may not be the opinion of the writer)I think this would be a bit of a stretch.


CW3 Troy Ward
NETOPS OCT
Bronco 30E
National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA

Are you a signal warrant officer? http://www.signal-chief.com/
 
Posts: 607 | Location: National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA | Registered: 26 October 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
the only time i personally have ever seen anything regarding slander of a govt. official it has pertained to officers. i have been in awhile and have never heard that an enlisted man can't say something negative about the president. on the other hand commissioned officers are held to a different standard
 
Posts: 12 | Registered: 22 March 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post

posted Hide Post
In your topic, you mention the word "Slander":

slan·der
–noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc

If it's a written statement, then it would be considered "Liable", but then what he posted would still have to be untrue.

As of now, Commanders are authorized to mandate that soldiers must "register" their blogs to prevent any SAEDA and OPSEC instances. But no regs have yet to be published (coming soon to a PAC Clerk near you)
 
Posts: 5 | Registered: 29 March 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

ArmyStudyGuide.com    ArmyStudyGuide Community    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  General Community Discussion  Hop To Forums  General Discussion    Slander against the President

 
   
 
    
 
 
  
Google Site maps Generator Tool