[Politics] So why are Republicans pushing Charlie Kirk, when they are making Kirk a Martyr for the military?
Please note the Articles of Unform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are ambiguous on free speech on your own time off.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-cracks-down-troops-social-media-posts-about-charlie-kirk-2025-09-16/
Note to some that troll this post, I will delete trolling comments and replies. Insults against anyone I consider a troll.
This statement of yours could be interpreted against the freedom of speech. Because it is vague.
GPT-4o mini
"They must do so in a way that does not reflect poorly on the military or violate other regulations."
GPT-4o mini
You make a compelling argument regarding the vagueness of the standards applied to political speech by military personnel. The lack of clear definitions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) regarding what constitutes speech that "reflects poorly on the military" can indeed lead to interpretations that may infringe upon freedom of speech.
The Issue of Vagueness in Military Regulations
Ambiguity in Standards
The phrase "reflects poorly on the military" is subjective and can be interpreted in various ways. This ambiguity can create a chilling effect, where service members may self-censor their speech out of fear of potential repercussions.
Without specific guidelines, service members may find it difficult to understand what is permissible, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement and potential violations of their rights.
Freedom of Speech Concerns
The First Amendment protects individuals from government restrictions on speech, and this includes military personnel. When military regulations are vague, they can be challenged as infringing on constitutional rights.
Critics argue that the military should provide clearer guidelines on what constitutes acceptable political speech to avoid arbitrary enforcement and protect service members' rights.
Balancing Act
While the military has a legitimate interest in maintaining discipline and order, it must also respect the constitutional rights of its personnel. Striking this balance is crucial to ensure that service members can express their views without fear of unjust repercussions.
In conclusion, your point about the vagueness of military regulations regarding political speech is valid. Clearer definitions and guidelines would help protect the freedom of speech for service members while still allowing the military to uphold its standards of conduct.
This ongoing dialogue is essential for ensuring that the rights of individuals are respected within the military framework.
GPT-4o mini
"They must do so in a way that does not reflect poorly on the military or violate other regulations."
GPT-4o mini
You make a compelling argument regarding the vagueness of the standards applied to political speech by military personnel. The lack of clear definitions in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) regarding what constitutes speech that "reflects poorly on the military" can indeed lead to interpretations that may infringe upon freedom of speech.
The Issue of Vagueness in Military Regulations
Ambiguity in Standards
The phrase "reflects poorly on the military" is subjective and can be interpreted in various ways. This ambiguity can create a chilling effect, where service members may self-censor their speech out of fear of potential repercussions.
Without specific guidelines, service members may find it difficult to understand what is permissible, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement and potential violations of their rights.
Freedom of Speech Concerns
The First Amendment protects individuals from government restrictions on speech, and this includes military personnel. When military regulations are vague, they can be challenged as infringing on constitutional rights.
Critics argue that the military should provide clearer guidelines on what constitutes acceptable political speech to avoid arbitrary enforcement and protect service members' rights.
Balancing Act
While the military has a legitimate interest in maintaining discipline and order, it must also respect the constitutional rights of its personnel. Striking this balance is crucial to ensure that service members can express their views without fear of unjust repercussions.
In conclusion, your point about the vagueness of military regulations regarding political speech is valid. Clearer definitions and guidelines would help protect the freedom of speech for service members while still allowing the military to uphold its standards of conduct.
This ongoing dialogue is essential for ensuring that the rights of individuals are respected within the military framework.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-cracks-down-troops-social-media-posts-about-charlie-kirk-2025-09-16/
Pentagon cracks down on troops' social media posts about Charlie Kirk
By Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali
September 16, 20253:14 AM PDT
Updated September 16, 2025
Summary
° Pentagon ordered 'zero tolerance' policy on social media posts cheering Kirk's death
° Number of troops affected likely in the dozens, US official says
° US troops do not have same free speech rights as private citizens
WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. military is taking swift disciplinary action against U.S. troops over social media posts linked to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, carrying out a "zero-tolerance" policy toward those it sees as cheering his death, U.S. officials said.
The Pentagon has not publicly said how many service members have been disciplined so far but one U.S. official told Reuters it was likely in the dozens, as U.S. military leadership pursues a crackdown ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who knew Kirk personally.
Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative media celebrity known for his hard-right rhetoric, was killed by a single rifle shot during an outdoor event last week at Utah Valley University.
The staunch ally of President Donald Trump was not in the U.S. military's chain of command and had no official role in the U.S. government.
But legal experts and U.S. officials say U.S. troops do not have the same free speech rights as private citizens and can be punished for public-facing comments if commanders determine they violate Uniform Code of Military Justice provisions related to "good order and discipline."
"We WILL NOT tolerate those who celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American at the Department of War," Sean Parnell, the top Pentagon spokesperson, wrote on X, in comments reposted by Hegseth.
"It's a violation of the oath, it's conduct unbecoming, it's a betrayal of the Americans they've sworn to protect & dangerously incompatible with military service."
Trump has ordered the Department of Defense to rename itself the Department of War, a change that will require action by Congress.
The Army, Marine Corps and Navy did not immediately respond when asked by Reuters whether they had disciplined U.S. troops over such social media posts.
An Air Force spokesperson said: "As commanders verify inappropriate actions, they are taking the necessary administrative and disciplinary actions to hold service members accountable."
CHILLING EFFECT
Three U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said disciplinary actions so far have included relieving service members from their positions and other admonishment. While there were no known cases of people being separated from military service entirely, officials did not rule out that it might happen.
"The problem is they have very little protection," said Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force lawyer now at Southwestern Law School.
One U.S. official referred to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which he said clearly prohibited "contemptuous words" against any sitting U.S. president, the defense secretary, Congress and other senior officials.
Matthew Lohmeier, an undersecretary of the Air Force, announced over the weekend his intention to prosecute and remove from service an Air Force senior master sergeant in Florida who made comments about Kirk as well as about Trump. He said the airman's entire chain of command should be investigated.
"Men and women who are guilty of this kind of behavior will not serve in uniform," Lohmeier wrote on X.
While the Pentagon may find clear cases of violations of military law during the crackdown, legal experts caution that it is also creating a chilling effect on what would otherwise be permissible speech by U.S. troops, who are increasingly fearful of being seen as opposing the Trump administration.
VanLandingham said she had spoken to an active duty service member who had just combed through 20 years of social media posts, deleting those that have views not currently supported by Trump and his allies.
"The Department of Defense, from the very top, is telling individuals they cannot have certain thoughts," she said, adding that others will likely be "suppressed by threat of punishment."
One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged a chilling effect on what troops were sharing online. But the official also said troops should watch what they do, particularly on public-facing social media - given the current heated political climate.
"Sharing any kind of hot take when publicly identifiable as part of DoD (is) also dumb," the official added.
Reporting by Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali; Editing by Edmund Klamann
By Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali
September 16, 20253:14 AM PDT
Updated September 16, 2025
Summary
° Pentagon ordered 'zero tolerance' policy on social media posts cheering Kirk's death
° Number of troops affected likely in the dozens, US official says
° US troops do not have same free speech rights as private citizens
WASHINGTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. military is taking swift disciplinary action against U.S. troops over social media posts linked to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, carrying out a "zero-tolerance" policy toward those it sees as cheering his death, U.S. officials said.
The Pentagon has not publicly said how many service members have been disciplined so far but one U.S. official told Reuters it was likely in the dozens, as U.S. military leadership pursues a crackdown ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who knew Kirk personally.
Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative media celebrity known for his hard-right rhetoric, was killed by a single rifle shot during an outdoor event last week at Utah Valley University.
The staunch ally of President Donald Trump was not in the U.S. military's chain of command and had no official role in the U.S. government.
But legal experts and U.S. officials say U.S. troops do not have the same free speech rights as private citizens and can be punished for public-facing comments if commanders determine they violate Uniform Code of Military Justice provisions related to "good order and discipline."
"We WILL NOT tolerate those who celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American at the Department of War," Sean Parnell, the top Pentagon spokesperson, wrote on X, in comments reposted by Hegseth.
"It's a violation of the oath, it's conduct unbecoming, it's a betrayal of the Americans they've sworn to protect & dangerously incompatible with military service."
Trump has ordered the Department of Defense to rename itself the Department of War, a change that will require action by Congress.
The Army, Marine Corps and Navy did not immediately respond when asked by Reuters whether they had disciplined U.S. troops over such social media posts.
An Air Force spokesperson said: "As commanders verify inappropriate actions, they are taking the necessary administrative and disciplinary actions to hold service members accountable."
CHILLING EFFECT
Three U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said disciplinary actions so far have included relieving service members from their positions and other admonishment. While there were no known cases of people being separated from military service entirely, officials did not rule out that it might happen.
"The problem is they have very little protection," said Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force lawyer now at Southwestern Law School.
One U.S. official referred to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which he said clearly prohibited "contemptuous words" against any sitting U.S. president, the defense secretary, Congress and other senior officials.
Matthew Lohmeier, an undersecretary of the Air Force, announced over the weekend his intention to prosecute and remove from service an Air Force senior master sergeant in Florida who made comments about Kirk as well as about Trump. He said the airman's entire chain of command should be investigated.
"Men and women who are guilty of this kind of behavior will not serve in uniform," Lohmeier wrote on X.
While the Pentagon may find clear cases of violations of military law during the crackdown, legal experts caution that it is also creating a chilling effect on what would otherwise be permissible speech by U.S. troops, who are increasingly fearful of being seen as opposing the Trump administration.
VanLandingham said she had spoken to an active duty service member who had just combed through 20 years of social media posts, deleting those that have views not currently supported by Trump and his allies.
"The Department of Defense, from the very top, is telling individuals they cannot have certain thoughts," she said, adding that others will likely be "suppressed by threat of punishment."
One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged a chilling effect on what troops were sharing online. But the official also said troops should watch what they do, particularly on public-facing social media - given the current heated political climate.
"Sharing any kind of hot take when publicly identifiable as part of DoD (is) also dumb," the official added.
Reporting by Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali; Editing by Edmund Klamann
Note to some that troll this post, I will delete trolling comments and replies. Insults against anyone I consider a troll.
61-69, M
