Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
In San Diego this week, a judge denied the request of a Marine Corps Sergeant to stay his hearing before a military panel considering his Other Than Honorable discharge as a result of the Armed Forces Tea Party page he created on Facebook and associated statements made against President Obama that were considered to be prejudicial to good order and discipline.
Meanwhile, the newly appointed head of the DNC’s Jewish Outreach program is under fire after photos from her Facebook page surfaced in which she and her friends (who are Jewish) made jokes about being the “Jew Cash Money Team” which might be found offensive to other Jewish Americans.
Now, there are certainly some uncontroversial common sense lessons to be drawn from each of these stories: the Internet is a largely public forum with a infinite memory; whenever acting in public, we should demonstrate good taste and discretion. And so on.
But I think there are also interesting wrinkles in these stories which merit a bit of attention (for example, Reps. Darrell Issa and Duncan Hunter agreeing with the ACLU in a petition against the US Marine Corps)
With regard to the DNC story, the photos are rather childish and stupid, but also mostly harmless and self-deprecating. Is it impossible, in the internet age, to have a sense of humor without inciting a scandal?
And with regard to the former story about the Marine Sergeant—the one which is far more interesting in my opinion—is the Sergeant acting on his own time and in his capacity as a private citizen expressing his opinion in public (the Internet Age equivalent of attending a political rally in his off time out of uniform), or, because this was done on a public server in his own name, is this a public political action that violates his duty to remain, in his professional capacity, politically neutral (the equivalent of showing up to work wearing a “GOP” button on his uniform)--especially given his statement that he would not follow orders from this commander and chief (which, given the reporting on the subject, appear to have been ill-considered statements made in haste and anger more than a serious threat to defy his superiors)?
Wherever you come down on both of these cases, I think one thing can be said for certain: the wall between public and private is being torn down around us both by the forces of technology and by the choices many individuals are making of their own free will.
Paradoxically, the age in which speech has more avenues to be expressed, distributed and heard than ever before in human history is fast becoming one in which engaging in some kinds of speech is more hazardous than ever to one's career and therefore that certain kinds of speech are stifled. It gives one pause to wonder whether our much vaunted democratic freedom of expression does not come with its own peculiar form of persecution.
To say the least, the slow collapse of the public/private distinction has implications for both of these spheres that ought to worry us. And, inter alia, is good reason for some of us to write in pseudonyms.
[Photo credit to KSWB Fox 5 San Diego]
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
Pseudonyms worked for Hamilton and Madison.
Apr '12
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
There are no "private citizens" in the military. You're military or you're not. There is no gray area; if you're military, you're military 24x7x365 - every minute of every day until you're discharged.
Forget everything you learned in school about "rights" or the constitution. When you joined up, you gave all that away, and submitted yourself to the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" or UCMJ. Another oxymoron, like military intelligence.
At least this is slightly more palatable in an "all-volunteer" force than it was during the days of the draft. If you can't accept the UCMJ, don't sign up. Command is absolute and omnipotent. Obedience must be the same. That's just the way it is in the military.
We used to joke that the USMC "took away our birthday, cut off all our hair, and sent us to Cuba." If you don't know it, EVERY Marine's birthday is November 10th, or more properly "10 November 1775 in Tun Tavern." That's in Philadelphia.
There is no "on his own time and in his capacity as a private citizen" for our service members. Ask any Marine. They know.
Semper Fi.
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
I am with oldbaritone. If Democrats want to make fools of themselves, they can be my guest. Of soldiers in service discretion is required. We do not want a politicized army.
Mar '11
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
Precisely. If you're active duty and you want to express a political opinion, then you'd better do it anonymously, with no hint of who you are and what you do. The military world is NOT the civilian world, and you have to accept the limitations that come with it when you join.
As much as I agree with the Marine's sentiments, he's wrong. As long as he's wearing that uniform, he can't speak as civilians do.
And why am I not shocked that once again, the ACLU is on the wrong side of the issue?
Jul '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
There is no "public/private" distinction in the military. A lot of people don't understand that. Absolutely unacceptable to voice or champion a political position under the auspices of the military. You can make a "Tea Party Army Conservatives" if you're not in the service anymore, but not when you're still in. I go by a pseudonym on here for a reason, and make a point of making my political and religious views undetectable when interacting with soldiers, except with very close friends.
May '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
Crow's Nest
Wherever you come down on both of these cases, I think one thing can be said for certain: the wall between public and private is being torn down around us both by the forces of technology and by the choices many individuals are making of their own free will.
.... It gives one pause to wonder whether our much vaunted democratic freedom of expression does not come with its own peculiar form of persecution.
To say the least, the slow collapse of the public/private distinction has implications for both of these spheres that ought to worry us. ....
Well said. I don't have anything to add at the moment, but that's well worth consideration.
Sep '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
I think that this ease of persecution will result in the abandonment of facebook. It's a shame that this NCO didn't understand the rules for blogging when they first were drafted back in 05/06.
Jun '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
Crow's Nest
To say the least, the slow collapse of the public/private distinction has implications for both of these spheres that ought to worry us. And, inter alia, is good reason for some of us to write in pseudonyms.
[Photo credit to KSWB Fox 5 San Diego]· · 4 hours ago
I respect your decision to do so, though it is not my choice. Using my own name online helps keep me civil; my Scots-Irish temper and Cherokee mean streak have on occasion earned me some trouble and regret, so I need the check on my baser nature.
Jun '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
Eh.
I'm of two minds on this. It's well-established that we can't put 'Army' (or whichever branch) on a personal endeavor, most especially a political one; that's uncontroversial throughout DoD. Where I think we have to be very careful is in following a blanket adherence to the old "1SG owns you 24/7" mentality. For better or worse, we have a much more independent pool of young people from which to draw, and this is part of the change they bring to the services.
May '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
While this is probably a bit harsh, it seems to represent the general consensus here about soldiers talking politics on Facebook:
Mar '11
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
To say the least. As misguided as putting this website up was, I suspect the sergeant felt he was sincerely trying to live out his oath to support and defend the Constitution--there may be more than one failure, and more than one person to fail him, which has brought him to this moment.
Had the sergeant been under my command, he would have received the same counseling session I've given to many other sailors about discretion and social media use and the the prudence of remembering that Facebook--whatever it advertises itself as--is the public square writ large.
Nevertheless, some of us may forget too easily how ubiquitous this technology is in the lives of the young and the persistence of its influence (the cell phone is always in their pocket, even on the job) especially when we are trying to imbue some sense of the martial virtues that oldbaritone mentioned.
Mar '11
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
I strongly agree with those posters who have argued passionately that the military is not simply a job, it is a way of life, and that way of life makes many demands that other ways do not. Moreover, we are expected to live by the ethos of our services not merely in uniform but also outside of it--we carry ourselves everywhere as an example. All of us who took our oath in good faith, and take it seriously, I think, know that.
Nevertheless, it has never been the case that a military member couldn't, in his off hours, attend a political speech by a candidate. As a practical matter, military members do have time out of uniform and do act in private.
Our "core values" (a term I dislike intensely) are meant to be with us always, but we're not always an army on the march in the field--we do have to come back to the city at some point. We're not just encamped on the city's outskirts, totally alien to the society around us.
That balancing act is a challenge in every time. In our age it has become much harder.
Mar '11
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
But I didn't actually post on this subject only to raise the narrow UCMJ questions (which are of accidental interest). Instead I thought that the military's eminently necessary restriction on speech and unease with new forums for certain kinds of activities might help to highlight aspects of this technology that get obscured by its routine use by a wider population.
That is, the last three paragraphs are what interest and concern me. Especially with regard to the way that the complete freedom of expression may be paradoxical in its effects. Silly democrats and misguided sergeants are incidental.
May '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
I think those of us who grew up in large families have fewer expectations of privacy.
Crow's Nest
the wall between public and private is being torn down around us both by the forces of technology and by the choices many individuals are making of their own free will.
I see this as a possible antidote to political correctness. The more difficult it becomes for people to hide their opinions and beliefs, the more cause they have to defend them and to demand tolerance of contrary views.
Consider the "cleansing of the public square" in regard to religious beliefs. Totalitarians are striving to confine religion to churches and homes (as if that's possible). When people were told they could not discuss such thoughts at work or in school, they accepted that restriction. But they are less hesitant about expressing these beliefs on Facebook or other social networks, even among strangers.
Political correctness has corrupted many citizens' understanding of tolerance into a codex of acceptable assertions. The withering of privacy has the potential (only potential) to restore true tolerance, because it makes us choose between accepting perpetual silence or demanding the freedom of expression.
Sep '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
With regard to the DNC story, the photos are rather childish and stupid, but also mostly harmless and self-deprecating. Is it impossible, in the internet age, to have a sense of humor without inciting a scandal?
Oh, I think there's a lot more going on here than a lack of a sense of humor. Is it not interesting—and galling—that the party of identity politics advertises its fund-raising efforts by resorting to an age-old stereotype? One that continues to be an integral element of fascism? I don't shake my head at such spectacles because I don't have a sense of humor but because I cannot help but be amazed at how these people constantly reveal—confess?—their inability to live by what they claim to be their philosophy (remember the young Obama adviser who was photographed groping the one-dimensional breasts of a cut-out of Hillary Clinton?). Soooo funny. These events are much more revealing than comical.
Regarding the Marine sergeant, I agree with everyone above. I don't want a politically minded (and thus polarized) military, so I can't very well publicly support his effort.
Dec '11
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
The democrats lost all ability to complain after 2lt Watada didn't goto jail
Jun '10
Re: Privacy and Speech in the Internet Age
The rules aren't that difficult to follow. If you are in the military you can not express any political opinion in a manner that gives the impression that you are speaking in an official capacity. The military recognizes people are individuals, but they require people to give up the right to some forms of expression for the greater good, and as a voluntary member of the military you agree to that.
I'm not able to express myself as clearly as others have, but I agree with their sentiment. A military member simply doesn't mix his private opinions with his public persona.