Tighter and Tighter

Active duty milbloggers shalt not:

4.1.2.3. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles, letters, or endorsements signed or written by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. This is distinguished from a letter to the editor as permitted under the conditions noted in subparagraph

4.1.2.6 Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.

4.1.2.7. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan political club or group or distribute partisan political literature.

Commissioned milbloggers are for most intents and purposes McCain-Feingolded early, should somebody decide to make an example of them.  That will come. Those that continue will need auxiliaries beyond the reach of retribution.  That’s a mission for PIST.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Idea War, Info Warriors, Lawfare

5 responses to “Tighter and Tighter

  1. In 4.1.2.6 it says participate for or against a cause. That could be pretty loosely interpretated. Is Soldier’s Angels a “cause”? Is every opinion no matter how small a “cause”? Very restrictive indeed. Oh well, there was a written instruction on my boat that said “Sailors shall not use foul language while in uniform”…it wasn’t taken very seriously. Thanks for the heads up on this.

  2. You’re welcome, LT.
    Yep. Lots of work for JAG here.
    It will be interesting to see who the first milblogger made an example of will be.

    Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me, or you.

    Watch your topknot, LT. J6 is watching you.

  3. Military lawyers need to get with the program. Just because terrorists are immune from their over-zealous quest to perfect human nature, doesn’t mean they need to vent it off on their servicemembers.

  4. They’re with the program. Their program.

  5. suek

    There’s always been a restriction on the military when it comes to political partisan support in uniform. I wonder if this isn’t just an extension of that restriction – a recognition that if so and so is identified as military by their blog, that they shouldn’t be politically active.
    In other words, if John Doe is posting to a blog that is one of the milblogs, or posting as (rank) John Doe, there are going to be restrictions. If he’s able to post as John Doe with _no_ miitary identification, the restrictions wouldn’t apply. The problem may be that most of the military members blog through military-accessed facilities, so there may be no way to separate them from their military identification.

    Maybe.

    I have a feeling this is just because this is an election year, and many military tend to have strong feelings about the Clintons. They may be trying to head off possible problems. I understood that there were pretty tight restrictions during Clinton’s presidency due to those same feelings.