Talk:Disloyal statements

Unsourced opinions
I removed the following: This article appears to limit the freedom of speech guaranteed to all Americans under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as it appears to prevent someone in the military from expressing their opinions about issues that should be discussed in public, though some state that the right of free speech is reserved to an individual member of the military while "out of uniform" and this law recognizes limitations that an individual faces when voicing opinions during military operations.

Members of the United States military are in a peculiar situation of having protections under the first amendment and swearing to follow the President's orders. Thus, although a military member may vote for whom ever he/she wishes, the member may not actively campaign against (or for) the president. Additionally, disloyal statements would erode the overall strength and resolve of the military as a whole.

IANALB i can read, and know that the content of the first of the two 'graphs would only "appear to limit" in that way to someone who is ignorant of at least one of Respectively, these decisions say that If someone wants to go to the work of covering this area of controversy, they can do so, presenting sources and presenting both sides of the controversy. As to the second 'graph, (i give not a FF for what your drill sgt. -- also NAL, and, more importantly, indisposed from reliability -- told you on the subject, and...) it is not only SYNTH but bad logic: if the oath (or even the obedience to orders that the oath describes) is relevant here, it not bcz disobedience to orders violates the oath, but bcz the UCMJ makes a criminal act out of disobedience to orders. And that bad logic is compounded with more of the same: if it's a question of obedience, why is "(or for)" added, and why is voting against the President permitted? There are good explanations for the political prohibitions, but the removed 2nd 'graph obscures them by giving bad (not only false, but illogical) ones; we are better off without it.
 * 1) the famous "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" / "Clear and present danger" SC decision of the early 20th century, and
 * 2) the court's opinion in PARKER v. LEVY, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) (which practically threw itself at me as i researched some surprising casing in The Caine Mutiny)
 * 1) Free speech is not an unlimited right for anyone.
 * 2) Given that, it is logical that the limits reflect the circumstances of the speech (not the speaker's civilian or military status per se).
 * In fact, IANALB i can read and roughly understand the single, semi-colon- and parenthesis-free, sentence of Article 134, and i come away confident that the limits on military political activity are explicit in some other, more specific, article or general order, and would be enforced analogously to the charges -- under Article 134, but along w/ Articles 133 and 90 -- against Levy, under that more specific provision, and perhaps also under 134 (and/or 133) but only if it seemed clear to the prosecutor that (analogously with Levy, whose statements on their face indicate that he hoped to incite others to disobey orders) the campaigning was not just satisfying a desire to affect the outcome of the election, but also obviously or intentionally encouraging others to do so, and/or obviously or intentionally undercutting Congress's intention to keep the military, as an institution, from being a political player except thru testimony that Congressional committees summon members of the military to provide to them. (Of course, my confidence about military prosecutors' behavior does not apply those who thought that if they were more charge-happy, the GWB admin would put them on a track to get Justice Dpt or Federal judiciary positions. But that's my PoV, not to mention another topic.)

(I wrote some really long sentences in at least the indented 'graph -- OMG, i think it's one long, and one relatively short sent -- and if anyone is interested but confused, i could find a way to break them up in a further contrib; too tired to consider it right now. My talk page is lk'd in my sig.) --Jerzy•t 08:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)