The Discharge of Sgt. Gary Stein

Does a solidier have 1st Amendment protection to criticze the president?

  • YES (at all times)

    Votes: 6 18.8%
  • YES (but only out-of-uniform)

    Votes: 10 31.3%
  • NO (not in or out-of-uniform)

    Votes: 14 43.8%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Total voters
    32

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
A Marine sergeant who criticized President Obama on his Facebook page is being discharged for his comments:

Sgt. Gary Stein, the 26-year-old Marine who learned Wednesday he would be discharged for his online comments criticizing President Barack Obama, wishes he could take it back.

“People ask me, ‘Would you go back and change those words?’ I would most definitely,” Stein told msnbc.com. “I would articulate my point better.”


On March 1, Stein wrote on a closed forum for active-duty meteorologists and oceanographers that he would say "Screw Obama" and not follow all orders from him, according to Courthouse News.


“Obama is the economic enemy,” he wrote in the post. “He is the religious enemy ... He is the ‘fundamentally change’ America enemy … He IS the Domestic Enemy.”

Five minutes later, another Marine took down his post, but not before someone Stein knew took a screen shot and forwarded the comment to Stein’s superiors.


Stein had already been warned about a Facebook page he had started in 2010, which he named Armed Forces Tea Party.


“They said, ‘All we ask is that you write that the views are not that of the Marine Corps or the Department of Defense,’” Stein said. He said he put up the disclaimer that day.
The Facebook page, which had six moderators, including Stein, included posts about contraception, gays in the military, pundit Keith Olbermann and Obama. One post included a photo of Obama with the word, “Jackass” written underneath. Stein said that was not his post.


Service members are, according to Directive 1344 of the Department of Defense, allowed to express personal opinions on political candidates, but not as representatives of the Armed Forces.


Last month, a three-member military panel recommended that he be booted from the Marine Corps. On Wednesday, Brig. Gen. Daniel Yoo accepted their recommendation that Stein be dismissed for violating military law.


Stein said he repeatedly told Marine Corps officials he would shut down the Facebook page and not speak with the press if they allowed him to complete his contract, which ends in three months, but they refused.



“I think they’re trying to use me as an example,” Stein said. “Senior officers don’t want to hear, ‘You were the person who let this Gary Stein situation get out of hand. I think there might have been peer pressure among the senior enlisted.”


Maj. Michael Armistead, a Marine Corps spokesman at Camp Pendleton, could not confirm whether this negotiation took place.


“If he was in front of me right now, I would salute him, say, ‘Yes, Mr. President, No, Mr. President,’ and when I walked away, I would still disagree with his policies. But those are two separate things.
 

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
460
Location
United States
I think it's probably more complicated than first amendment rights. As far as I can tell, this man's first amendment rights haven't really been violated -- the right to free speech doesn't mean that there won't ever be consequences for our speech. Being in the service is much like civilian jobs in that you don't have a right to that job. Your employment depends on your ability to fulfill your duties.

I think soldiers should be able to express their opinions, including opinions that are critical of the president or U.S. government. However, it looks like this soldier's comments went beyond simple criticism. He claims he wouldn't follow orders from Obama, and I think his superiors would be justified in being concerned that this attitude could prevent him from performing his duties.

I don't know if discharging him was justified in this instance or not, but I think his comments were unprofessional. I wouldn't make comments about how much I hate the CEO of my company and would refuse to follow their instructions, and if I did, I could see how my bosses could find that alarming.
 

FalconMage

Rob J. Vargas
Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
218
Reaction score
17
Location
Midwest, USA
The Sargeant is an idiot. One of his posts referenced his service as a Marine. The moment he did that, it was over.

This is covered by UCMJ, and military members DO surrender some rights as a consequence of their service. For example, there are ways to lose double-jeopardy protections.

This is not a First Amendment case.
 

Prozyan

Are you one, Herbert?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
2,326
Reaction score
658
Location
Nuevo Mexico
President Obama is the commander in chief, the highest point on the military chain of command. By showing disrespect and openly stating he would refuse to follow his orders, this Marine crossed the line.

Its like calling your boss an asshole. Sure, you can do it, but there will be consequences.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I think soldiers should definitely be allowed to criticize the president and the government without fear of repercussion, given the the disclaimer that their opinion doesn't reflect the opinion of the military or whatever. You shouldn't have to give that up when you join the military, IMO, or take any government job.

I can certainly see saying you'd refuse to follow orders as a valid reason for dismissal, however. That's quite different from criticism then.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
It's far worse than calling the boss an asshole. By making this statement, the man was suggesting he would commit insubordination, dereliction of duty, and just about everything else that legally covers military personnel refusing to follow orders without justification.

US military personnel are not obliged to follow illegal orders, but this soldier being a Limbaugh "Ditto-head" does not make Obama an illegitimate president nor his orders illegal. Not liking Obama's policies is not a justification for refusing to follow orders. Let him show Obama issuing illegal orders and then he might have a leg to stand on.

Further, US military personnel are sworn to defend and protect the United States, its citizens, and its Constitution. That means that he doesn't get to un-American-ize anyone, including Obama, on the basis of whatever he imagines their religion is or isn't, so that crack about Obama being the religious enemy is also a failure of his understanding of his duty.

This idiot is lucky he just got discharged, instead of facing the risk of a potential investigation and court martial. The fact that he has been discharged and is now free to run his mouth as much as he likes is proof that his rights were at no time violated. The government has done nothing at all to silence him -- though I wish they would. I'm so tired of that bullshit.
 

Nymtoc

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
43,833
Reaction score
3,366
Location
Between the lines
I think soldiers should definitely be allowed to criticize the president and the government without fear of repercussion, given the the disclaimer that their opinion doesn't reflect the opinion of the military or whatever. You shouldn't have to give that up when you join the military, IMO, or take any government job.

The fact is, you do give that up.

I am a very strong supporter of free speech, but let's remember that members of the military live and work under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which most of us do not. Moreover, Sgt. Stein wasn't just criticizing the President, he was attacking--with a milder version of the F-word--his boss, the Commander-in-Chief. The sergeant would have gotten into trouble if he had used the same language to attack his platoon or company commander.

Should he have been discharged? I think the discharge is warranted, though he now says he regrets his words.

Being an Army veteran myself, I know something about the stresses and strains of living under military command.
 
Last edited:

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
This is not a First Amendment issue. Sgt. Stein is not being subjected to criminal prosecution for anything he said. His employer, on the other hand, has decided that he no longer should be employed by them, on account of things he said. The First Amendment protects him against criminal legal sanction, not against civil action.

The President of the United States is Sgt. Stein's ultimate Commander. Stein proved himself too big a dumbass to merit continued employment.

That is all. Carry on.

caw
 

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
Joining the military entails giving up certain freedoms. That includes free speech when it comes to being your commanding officer, and they don't call the President the Commander in Chief for nothing.

Open and shut, it seems.
 

thebloodfiend

Cory
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
630
Age
30
Location
New York
Website
www.thebooklantern.com
What a dumbass. Let's see, if I worked at McDonalds and called my district manager -- "
“the economic enemy, the religious enemy, the America[n] enemy ... the Domestic Enemy.”
on Facebook (keeping in mind that underlings of my boss are my friends on FB) I'd be fired. Insulting your boss is like pissing in your water hole. Yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants, but the military has every right to discharge him. Disagreeing, and saying that shit /=/. If you want to join the military, you should have to accept that your commander in cheif, ie Obama, is your boss. There's no draft. It's voluntary.

It's like me choosing to work as a PR rep for Michelle Bachmann (why the fuck would I?) and wondering why she fires me when I start preaching tolerance for gays and calling her a bigot. I'm right, but she still has the right to get rid of me.

And if you enlisted under Bush, but have to work through an Obama term, why are you so dumb that you can't wait to call the Prez "an enemy of America" until he's out of office?
 

Mharvey

Liker Of Happy Things
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
234
Location
The Nexus
I believe the decision to discharge him was appropriate, namely because of the opening line:

A U.S. Marine who made Facebook posts calling President Barack Obama "the domestic enemy" and saying he would not follow "all orders from him."

President Obama is Commander and Chief. If you're a soldier, you took an oath to follow his orders. If you can no longer do that, then it's very appropriate you get discharged. I just can't see how the military can be run like a democracy and still work... so I guess I gotta say a soldier should not have the first amendment right to criticize the president, in or out of uniform.
 

Yorkist

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2012
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
572
Location
Navigating through the thorns.
If this guy had been bitching about Obamacare or something, this might be mildly disconcerting. If he was just chatting about how Romney had his vote, same.

But he wasn't. *shrug*

The deeply cynical part of me wonders whether this guy is going to become five-minute poster boy for the Tea Party, though.

We are in deep, deep trouble when military personnel see themselves as political party first, American second.
 

Nymtoc

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
43,833
Reaction score
3,366
Location
Between the lines
Yorkist;7224088 said:
We are in deep, deep trouble when military personnel see themselves as political party first, American second.

Well said! :Thumbs:
 

DancingMaenid

New kid...seven years ago!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
460
Location
United States
The fact is, you do give that up.

I am a very strong supporter of free speech, but let's remember that members of the military live and work under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which most of us do not. Moreover, Sgt. Stein wasn't just criticizing the President, he was attacking--with a milder version of the F-word--his boss, the Commander-in-Chief. The sergeant would have gotten into trouble if he had used the same language to attack his platoon or company commander.

I don't believe that members of the military should have to give up any freedoms that civilians have. I don't agree with that, so if it were just a matter of that, I'd be on this guy's side (with the caveat that he knew what he was getting into when he signed up for the military).

However, I think the issue with his statements (that is, that he basically called his commander in chief an enemy whose orders he wouldn't follow) is more or less equally valid whether we're talking the military or civilian jobs. I can't think of many jobs where saying you don't respect your boss and won't follow their orders would be okay. The only difference I see is that in the military, being able to follow orders is far more likely to be a major life-or-death or national security matter, whereas if I don't follow orders at my job, nothing of particular importance will happen.
 

Nymtoc

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
43,833
Reaction score
3,366
Location
Between the lines
I don't believe that members of the military should have to give up any freedoms that civilians have.

If that were the case, no military could function. Discipline and unquestioning obedience of orders (except illegal orders) are the basis upon which every military unit must operate. Obeying orders, accepting the mission and showing respect for superiors--no matter what you may think privately--are imperative. They are needed to maintain cohesion, which is vital in combat.

I can't think of many jobs where saying you don't respect your boss and won't follow their orders would be okay. The only difference I see is that in the military, being able to follow orders is far more likely to be a major life-or-death or national security matter, whereas if I don't follow orders at my job, nothing of particular importance will happen.

You got that right.

In sum, I don't know why so many people who have not experienced the military think it should operate like some kind of social club. Scratch that--I do understand.
 

Gregg

Life is good
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,725
Reaction score
248
Age
77
Location
In my house on the river
This is not a First Amendment issue. Sgt. Stein is not being subjected to criminal prosecution for anything he said. His employer, on the other hand, has decided that he no longer should be employed by them, on account of things he said. The First Amendment protects him against criminal legal sanction, not against civil action.

The President of the United States is Sgt. Stein's ultimate Commander. Stein proved himself too big a dumbass to merit continued employment.

That is all. Carry on.

caw

Agreed.

Same with most private business. Most employees of small business are "at will" employees, meaning that they can be fired for almost any reason (other than for discrimination, etc).
I remember we fired an employee because he was telling all new workers what a terrible company we were. What a dope.
 

Snowstorm

Baby plot bunneh sniffs out a clue
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
13,722
Reaction score
1,121
Location
Wyoming mountain cabin
This is not a First Amendment issue. Sgt. Stein is not being subjected to criminal prosecution for anything he said. His employer, on the other hand, has decided that he no longer should be employed by them, on account of things he said. The First Amendment protects him against criminal legal sanction, not against civil action.

The President of the United States is Sgt. Stein's ultimate Commander. Stein proved himself too big a dumbass to merit continued employment.

That is all. Carry on.

caw

x 3.

The instant he posted he would not follow "all orders from him," meant Stein intended to disobey orders. And in my view, it was also a seditious act. Good riddance.
 

thothguard51

A Gentleman of a refined age...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
9,316
Reaction score
1,064
Age
72
Location
Out side the beltway...
The guy was given a chance and told to stop his postings several times by the Marines. He chose to ignore the warnings.

While I feel he exercised what he considered his right to free speech, what he forgot about is that he volunteered to join the Marines and by doing so, he agreed to follow the UCMJ.
 

Romantic Heretic

uncoerced
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
2,624
Reaction score
354
Website
www.romantic-heretic.com
I voted yes at all times, because he does.

That does not mean he is free of consequences for his speech. He doesn't get to decide who the 'domestic enemy' is. He swore to follow orders from the Commander-in-Chief, which happens to be the President.

What he said is close to treason, and there is no way any military force will tolerate a traitor in their midst.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Any soldier suggesting he is not going to obey the commander has just talked his way out of a job. That goes beyond just 'having an opinion'.
 

FalconMage

Rob J. Vargas
Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
218
Reaction score
17
Location
Midwest, USA
How many countries all across this planet have suffered from military takeover?

The military is subservient to civilian authority, and this (arguable) surrender of First Amendment freedom as a member of the military is part of that. We *do* surrender some measure of freedom of expression when we join the military.

For very good reason.

And just for record, my father was Air Force, and I spent 7 years in the Navy. My birth certificate is with the US State Department. I've grown up with this. That doesn't make me an expert. But the familiarity is personally derived.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
How many countries all across this planet have suffered from military takeover?

I would think being forced to give up the right to voice your criticisms of the government would fuel the exact kind of resentment that would result in a military coup rather than the oer way around. Maybe not. There are many reasons I'm not a soldier.