Apparently somehow freedom of speech doesn't apply to retired Army general Gary Volesky

[StillBallin75]

You never served, right?
Hey, it's okay...my wife is a veteran but I never joined the Army either so I did not serve.
But lame whataboutist memes aside, it is rather obvious that you didn't serve because your OP demonstrates that you either did not serve or you skipped that part of training where you're told about the consequences that arise from that sort of speech when you are representing the military either on active duty OR in retirement WHEN and WHERE service to the government is involved.

For instance, did you know that the government can also do things like REINSTATE General Flynn's duty status to ACTIVE and then COURT MARTIAL him for HIS actions?
It's all there where you sign on the dotted line and take that oath.

Don't even have to bring the military into it.

The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a job, and doesn't guarantee protection from getting let go if you say something that pisses off your employer.

OP is a conservative bigot masquerading as a libertarian and thus has zero grasp of what the 1st Amendment actually protects.

 

[neil]

The point is that your OP topic wasn't limited to this specific case but only made a general reference to freedom of speech, implying that any speech should be immune to this kind of response. I pointed out that there are limitations to free speech and you now seem to be accepting that with things like official secrets or defamation, which was exactly my point.

Again, I'm not saying this specific case wasn't an illegal breach of his rights, only that to propose that, you can't just say "Free speech!", you have to establish that none of those exceptions apply in these circumstances (which under UCMJ and surrounding case law, could be difficult).

You could make an argument that this established precedent should be changed, essentially increasing the practical limitations on government action in the face of free speech, but since you have accepted that there are some valid circumstances, you'd need to set out exactly where and how you feel that line should be drawn, in contrast to where it currently is.

Fine; have it your way. I'm purpose and context oriented with my posts, which is why I played the card earlier & am asking that we keep the focus on the topic.

Things like conspiracy to murder or conspiracy to terrorism. Essentially talking about concrete plans to committing a crime but not (yet) taking any direct action in relation to it.

Ah, ok. What's throwing me off is that conspiracies are actions that are distinct from speaking & talking ("speech"), and typically involve committing a crime (murder, theft, fraud, etc.), so what I had in mind was speaking/talking (speech) about "conspiracy theories".

That sounds like a dangerous concept, especially from the "unconditional free speech" angle. Do you really want the possibility for entire forms of free expression to be ruled not really speech (and therefore not really free)? If anything, the popular push has been the other direction in the US.

Things like political speech can be or are dangerous to oppressive or corrupt governments & regimes, which is why socialist/authoritarian nations censor or persecute those who dare to speak ill of them, their cronies, their spouses, etc. Volesky is being persecuted for daring to speak ill of Jill (technically he was complementing her).

 

[jonny5]

This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. It's about the UCMJ.

From the article...

His response represents a breach of decorum for a retired military officer and a foray into partisan politics by an official on the payroll of the Pentagon, which is supposed to steer clear of such matters, experts say. His tweet has been deleted.​

However, what this action DOES expose is the arbitrary, politically corrupt and hypocritical manner in which the military enforces the UCMJ. Some retired...and even some active duty...military members are allowed to violate the UCMJ. Some, like Lt. Gen. Gary Volesky will pay a price.

The UCMJ applies to retired officers, ie private citizens? The article seems to imply hes a private contractor.

 

[neil]

Uh oh! https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/hunter-biden-allegedly-called-stepmom-174625113.html

 

[Rexedgar]

Uh oh! https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/hunter-biden-allegedly-called-stepmom-174625113.html

What’s it called when the engineer purposely runs his train off the track?

 

[Pound4abrown]

Uh oh! https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/hunter-biden-allegedly-called-stepmom-174625113.html

So you're saying Hunter Biden is a colossal **** up?
Wow, talk about breaking news, I hereby swear I will NEVER vote for Hunter Biden again, oh, wait.
Never mind.

 

[LouC]

Let's keep focusing on the topic. He didn't disclose any official secrets; he didn't violate any privacy laws; he didn't engage in criminal defamation; he didn't violate noise abatement laws; he didn't violate any obscenity laws; I don't even know what "conspiracy laws" are (Is this actually a thing in the UK?). What he said was political; one could argue that it was satirical, but one could also argue that it makes a valid political point.

One could argue that some of those examples you listed don't even count as speech, but political opinions or sentiments are speech, and political speech is what's most adamantly defended & protects, as opposed to disclosing official secrets, defamation, excessive noise, obscenity (although some might claim that obscenity is protected speech), etc.

There are some criminal defamation laws here in the US, in some states, but I think they may be bound or liable to be found unconstitutional, someday; I think defamation is mainly a civil (not criminal) matter, here in the US. With defamation there has to be some sort of false and negative claim about an individual that results in damage to their reputation, usually leading to an adverse financial impact on their career (e.g. Johnny Depp lawsuit against Amber Heard). I don't think anyone would assert that what he said was false or a claim (it's obvious it can be taken as his personal political opinion); Jill Biden doesn't even have a political career to protect & even if she did, consider the countless times that Donald Trump has been subjected to harsh, loathsome, scathing defamation that he can't legally do anything about.


The basic problem is that there's a contradiction or inconsistency; his contract was suspended by the federal government for no other reason than exercising his freedom of speech, which ought to be protected and defended by that very same federal government pursuant to or in observation of the Bill of Rights - and I take this very seriously.

The BOTTOM LINE is the General was serving in that position at the WILL of of the Official(s) that appointed him and thus they were under ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT to state any reason for discharge from that appointment.

At best DoD practices suggest allowing 3 days notice prior to termination of such services.

It is totally irrelevant what he tweeted nor is it mandatory he is even given a cause for termination.

He was serving "at will" and that will ended.

 

[HonestJoe]

Fine; have it your way. I'm purpose and context oriented with my posts, which is why I played the card earlier & am asking that we keep the focus on the topic.

Why did you bring up the irrelevancy of my nationality then? And why are you still talking about that while completely ignoring all of my comments on the actual topic of free speech?

Things like political speech can be or are dangerous to oppressive or corrupt governments & regimes, which is why socialist/authoritarian nations censor or persecute those who dare to speak ill of them, their cronies, their spouses, etc. Volesky is being persecuted for daring to speak ill of Jill (technically he was complementing her).

Sorry, I'm confused now. I was responding to you saying some of the forms of restricted speech aren't really speech (and by inference, aren't protected free speech at all). Now you're complaining about a certain form of speech ("political speech") being treated as if they don't count as free speech (which is a valid concern but nothing like as simple or one-sided as you'd like to imagine).

I don't see how you can have it both ways unless you address the point I actually made in the first place; Free speech isn't (and never has been) unconditional. The debates around it involve where the line(s) should be drawn to define which specific instances of speech can be limited or prohibited and, if so, how and by whom.

 

[neil]

Why did you bring up the irrelevancy of my nationality then? And why are you still talking about that while completely ignoring all of my comments on the actual topic of free speech?

I already explained why:

Apparently somehow freedom of speech doesn't apply to retired Army general Gary Volesky

He is working for them, and I am sure he has a morals clause. No one is holding a gun to his head making him work.. I bet he took the vaccine so he could ‘work’. Whatcha think?

debatepolitics.com

Why should I go over this again?

Sorry, I'm confused now. I was responding to you saying some of the forms of restricted speech aren't really speech (and by inference, aren't protected free speech at all). Now you're complaining about a certain form of speech ("political speech") being treated as if they don't count as free speech (which is a valid concern but nothing like as simple or one-sided as you'd like to imagine).

I don't see how you can have it both ways unless you address the point I actually made in the first place; Free speech isn't (and never has been) unconditional. The debates around it involve where the line(s) should be drawn to define which specific instances of speech can be limited or prohibited and, if so, how and by whom.

What's the purpose of all this? It seems you're essentially just trying to waste my time, and I'm going to keep my focus on this:

My position is that it is (political/opinion) freedom of speech for a "civilian" or private citizen, like Volensky, to say "glad to see you finally know what a woman is" on a public social media outlet about the spouse of a public servant, so the government is not supposed to be persecuting him for that, as they are doing. What he said wasn't a threat, didn't involve disclosing official secrets, didn't violate any privacy laws, wasn't a violation of noise abatement or obscenity laws, and didn't violate any other law. It's none of the federal government's business that he said this.

 

[Ikari]

Or is freedom of speech a privilege and not a right?

Retired 3-star general suspended from Army contract after tweet that appeared to mock Jill Biden

The retired officer, Gary Volesky, responded to a tweet Jill Biden sent about abortion. "Glad to see you finally know what a woman is," he wrote.

www.yahoo.com

Maybe Biden ought to be impeached for infringing on his 1st Amendment constitutional right.

West Point graduate who wore Che Guevara T-shirt discharged

"Communism will win" was written on Spenser Rapone's cap for his graduation at the military academy.

www.bbc.com

 

[StillBallin75]

The UCMJ applies to retired officers, ie private citizens? The article seems to imply hes a private contractor.

This doesn't have anything to do with the UCMJ either.

Mycroft's claim that this is a UCMJ issue is factually incorrect.

The DoD has an institutional and public interest in portraying itself as politically neutral, non-partisan, and being above the political fray. The general breached that norm and thus his employer is under no obligation to keep him under said employment.

This isn't a UCMJ issue.

 

[j brown's body]

The UCMJ applies to retired officers, ie private citizens? The article seems to imply hes a private contractor.

That wonderful revolving door.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Don't even have to bring the military into it.

The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee anyone a job, and doesn't guarantee protection from getting let go if you say something that pisses off your employer.

OP is a conservative bigot masquerading as a libertarian and thus has zero grasp of what the 1st Amendment actually protects.

But it IS the military and the military does HAVE specific mandates, specific rules and specific requirements all its own.
When you join, as my wife points out, you're swearing an oath and signing on the dotted line, making a promise to Uncle Sam.
You're also temporarily forfeiting some of your rights too, because Uncle Sam intends to use you as a "United States Government Issue" soldier, sailor, airman, marine or guardsman.
That oath permanently changes your relationship TO Uncle Sam and in return, Uncle Sam also makes promises to you, such as your benefits as a veteran, just as one example.

Leaving the military does restore many of your rights but as your relationship to the US Government is now permanently changed, your OATH creates consequences. (hat tip to @mrjurrs)

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The UCMJ applies to retired officers, ie private citizens? The article seems to imply hes a private contractor.

Contractor to who again?