Watch what you say: Speech limits under UCMJ

[CommunityEditor]

Q: I am currently on active duty and I want to get involved in politics. Can I?

A: This is a tricky question. The short answer is “no,” but like almost everything with law, exceptions do apply. (If it was not for exceptions in the law, law school would be three months instead of three years.) Numerous articles in the UCMJ restrict the speech of service members, and two of those could affect political speech. I would point out that under Article 2 of the UCMJ, retired members of the military drawing pay, as well as active-duty service members, are subject to UCMJ provisions. So if you think retiring will allow you to escape UCMJ action, you are wrong.

My favorite UCMJ provision is Article 88, which makes it a crime for an officer to use contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, the secretary of a military department, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present

In 1999, Army Lieutenant Colonel Michael Davidson explained in a law review article that contemptuous “means insulting, rude, disdainful or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness.”

This article of the UCMJ is relatively new (about 60 years old) but it can trace itself back to colonial times. If you think nobody gets prosecuted under it, think again. Numerous officers have been disciplined for criticizing the president. Two Marine Corps officers were administratively punished for published letters to newspapers that were disrespectful to the president in the 1990s.

Article 134, known as the catch-all article, makes criminal those acts of speech that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or that could bring discredit upon the Armed Forces. This is pretty broad and explains why it is often called the catch-all article. If your chain of command thinks your political involvement has affected your unit or the military, you could be punished under this article.

The UCMJ is not the only thing you need to worry about. If you are a noncommissioned officer, warrant officer or an officer, and attempt to influence other members of the military to vote because of your military authority, then you will be facing five years in prison under 18 USC 609.

Now that you have brushed up on some key laws, you could also run afoul of some very restrictive regulations. DoD Directive 1344.10 bans active-duty service members from running for office, participating in partisan political management, or campaigns (many exceptions are applicable).

If you have plans to speak out against the current administration, I would strongly recommend against it until you are off active duty — and not collecting retired pay!



Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/communi...awyer_070827w/
Law review on Contemptuous speech: http://tullylegal.com/article88.pdf

[Sabotage]

Funny! we can go to other countrys to die and free there people so they can have the right to speak theie minds, But as a service member we can't have that same privelage!!!!!!!!!!!

How peculiar!

I can understand rules can change on the battlefield, but this is ridiculous!

Then again, I don't know how strictly this gets enforced: There was this documentary I was watching, about the Iraq war, in which they showed a soldier saying that members of congress had the brain power of a 5 year-old... I doubt very much he would be prosecuted for that... :-)

[ringjamesa]

Don't be so sure. While he may not get courts-martialed, there are MANY other ways to punish someone. It happens. Even if you don't break any of the rules, you can still be disiplined for speaking to the media when you are not authorized. I know an instance where an individual was punished for writing a letter to the Editior of the Stars and Stripes. Nothing about anyone in particular but about a percieved injustice. Said individual was disiplined for "not using the chain of command" even though said individual tried that first.