Debate on 1st Amendment in U,S.

[Deleted User] · 09/04/12 - 15:09

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/marine-corps/220423-case-of-obama-bashing-marine-renews-first-amendment-debate

I find this debate to be imperative at this time. What do you think about the marine in question? Are his rights being violated? I would say so.

Sniffle774 · 09/04/12 - 15:13

Well being in the service and then saying you wont follow some orders from your CiC might not always be the best idea but I dont see what he has done wrong. As long as he does his job then does it matter what he thinks ? I dare say many members of the American armed forces might not agree with what they are asked to do, but they do it. Seems an overreaction to me, assuming that “Armed Forces Tea Party” site is not an official site so its surely his private opinion.

martyn20 · 09/04/12 - 15:14

It's clear he broke the rules of the military. You can't just switch on and off being a soldier when it suits you. People reading it will think it's the marine speaking.

BrooklynBoy · 09/04/12 - 15:18

I feel that if he had any other job he'd have every right to voice his opinion of the president. As a marine though there are strict rules about voicing political opinion and the rule book for the military needs to be followed by those in the forces.

Sniffle774 · 09/04/12 - 15:24

BrooklynBoy wrote: »

I feel that if he had any other job he'd have every right to voice his opinion of the president. As a marine though there are strict rules about voicing political opinion and the rule book for the military needs to be followed by those in the forces.

Ahh right. Never considered that. Well if thats the rules of the "workplace" when he signed up then he cant really complain if he is being held accountable to those rules.

Majlis · 09/04/12 - 15:31

Candiperfume wrote: »

Are his rights being violated? I would say so.

Not at all. Obama is Commander in Chief of the US Military and disrespecting a senior officer is a Court Martial offense under Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[Deleted User] · 10/04/12 - 08:46

martyn20 wrote: »

It's clear he broke the rules of the military. You can't just switch on and off being a soldier when it suits you. People reading it will think it's the marine speaking.

Agreed, if you don't like the rules don't join the club:rolleyes:

jmclaugh · 10/04/12 - 11:30

It seems the US Marines are seeking to discharge him which bearing in mind what he thinks you might have expected him to have done that himself, presumably he could try and re-enlist when the US elects a President he approves of.

paulschapman · 10/04/12 - 11:48

Candiperfume wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/marine-corps/220423-case-of-obama-bashing-marine-renews-first-amendment-debate

I find this debate to be imperative at this time. What do you think about the marine in question? Are his rights being violated? I would say so.

I would not - for a start he has said that he will not follow all the orders he has been given - since this forms the basis for discipline in the military forces then it somewhat makes a mockery if one can choose which orders to follow - based on the person who gives them I realise there might be exceptions - orders which are themselves illegal, but generally there is a chain of command - which in the US starts with the President and goes down to the private at the bottom.

We are not talking about being a conscientious objector - if we were then the situation would not arise - he should resign from the forces.

So no I am sure that his free speech rights are not being violated and further I'm am sure that for most of us we do not choose which orders we do from the boss based on if we liked them.

[Deleted User] · 10/04/12 - 16:49

paulschapman wrote: »

I would not - for a start he has said that he will not follow all the orders he has been given - since this forms the basis for discipline in the military forces then it somewhat makes a mockery if one can choose which orders to follow - based on the person who gives them I realise there might be exceptions - orders which are themselves illegal, but generally there is a chain of command - which in the US starts with the President and goes down to the private at the bottom.

We are not talking about being a conscientious objector - if we were then the situation would not arise - he should resign from the forces.

So no I am sure that his free speech rights are not being violated and further I'm am sure that for most of us we do not choose which orders we do from the boss based on if we liked them.

Since the Nuremberg trials a solder does not have the right to decide and can not be held responsible for making war.

However they are to a certain extent responsible if they act on orders from a superior that involves a war crime i.e. knowingly firing on a completely civilian target as such I do think this muddies the waters a bit about how much they can comment on/disagree with the CIC.

DS9 · 11/04/12 - 12:53

I'd say discharging him for saying he won't follow an order from the CIC is okay but not for attacking Obama as president. I know Obama is an senior officer as CIC but he's also the president. And attacking the presidents record should be an inviolable for all private citizens.

paulschapman · 11/04/12 - 13:05

rsh wrote: »

However they are to a certain extent responsible if they act on orders from a superior that involves a war crime i.e. knowingly firing on a completely civilian target as such I do think this muddies the waters a bit about how much they can comment on/disagree with the CIC.

This was the point I was trying to make - the right to refuse an order from a superior exists where that order involves a war crime - but you cannot refuse an order just because you do not like the person giving it.

Nobody is suggesting that he cannot express his views, just that he must obey the legal orders of his superior(s).

DarthGore · 11/04/12 - 13:21

DS9 wrote: »

I'd say discharging him for saying he won't follow an order from the CIC is okay but not for attacking Obama as president. I know Obama is an senior officer as CIC but he's also the president. And attacking the presidents record should be an inviolable for all private citizens.

so using that argument in the UK, would you then agree that any form of mocking of the Crown (in effect, the monarch of the day) would be considered inviolable also?

DS9 · 11/04/12 - 13:54

DarthGore wrote: »

so using that argument in the UK, would you then agree that any form of mocking of the Crown (in effect, the monarch of the day) would be considered inviolable also?

In a word: yes.

blueisthecolour · 11/04/12 - 14:13

Candiperfume wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/marine-corps/220423-case-of-obama-bashing-marine-renews-first-amendment-debate

I find this debate to be imperative at this time. What do you think about the marine in question? Are his rights being violated? I would say so.

The 1st Amendment is such a nonsense anyway. "You have the right to freedom of speech; but not in this or that situation, or if you're doing this or someone else is doing that, or just because we've decided it would be best if you didn't say what you want to". In reality it the same as most liberal countries - there's a 'managed' right to freedom of speech.

The most notable case involving the 1st amendment in recent years was the one allowing US companies to spend whatever they want on political campaigning as it's 'their right to freedom of speech'. So really it the right of those that have the resources to shout down those that don't.

PlatinumSteve · 11/04/12 - 16:53

blueisthecolour wrote: »

The 1st Amendment is such a nonsense anyway. "You have the right to freedom of speech; but not in this or that situation, or if you're doing this or someone else is doing that, or just because we've decided it would be best if you didn't say what you want to". In reality it the same as most liberal countries - there's a 'managed' right to freedom of speech.

The most notable case involving the 1st amendment in recent years was the one allowing US companies to spend whatever they want on political campaigning as it's 'their right to freedom of speech'. So really it the right of those that have the resources to shout down those that don't.

What are you talking about? In the military, unit cohesion is required which mean's political statements have to be tempered, if the guy wants to leave the military he can say anything he wants.

As to the rest of your rant, uhh I'm not sure I follow what you're complaining about, we don't have hate speech regulation, our libel laws require the plaintiff to prove that what the defendant said could not possibly be true, what more do you want? I can go stand on a public corner and yell and exclaim just about anything I want, with no worries of retaliation or retribution from the government.

I agree the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds with "Free Speech Zone's" at protest's but we just need to wait for another chance to challenge it before the Supreme Court. I'd definitely take the US 1st Amendment over Canada or Europe's definition of Freedom of Speech.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Debate on 1st Amendment in U,S.

Comments