I thought you just had to be out of uniform and off base, but I know just as much about this as I do about quantum mechanics, so I don't know why I'm typing this.

What a headache. For those interested, here is the reg (pdf 52k). Seems like you can do what you are doing (mostly -- not that being mostly in compliance does you any good), but too many rules (some vague) to grasp in one reading. And I am a friggin' lawyer.

What a pain, Andrew! And what a shame if you have to cut back. (As I read the regs, I think you're OK, but IANAL in spades.)

I'd be happy to serve as a "character witness" for your non-partisanship, in my exemplary capacity as retired history professor and completely dispassionate (?!) observer of current events as well as all-round general good guy, if that helped - but experience tells me it wouldn't.

So do whatever you have to. Your life has quite enough strife in it without voluntarily asking for more. Good luck.

I have it on pretty good authority that the site is in violation of the Directive, and while I suppose I could try to fight it, I only just got back onto active duty. Blogging isn't worth torpedoing my career. Assuming it hasn't already done so.

Besides, given my output of late, taking a break might be the best thing for me.

Well, I am a lawyer, and I don't see how the site (or ObWi/WoC) somehow violates the directive upon an (admittedly brief) reading, unless there's some other interpretation outthere that I'm not aware of (which is entirely possible).

This language causes problems (from examples of prohibited activity):

E3.3.9. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as an advocate for or against of [sic] a partisan political party, candidate, or cause. (emphasis added)

That would seem to cover a blog.

How that example follows from the rules itself makes no sense, particularly given this:

4.1.1. A member on active duty may:
4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

* * *

4.1.2. A member on active duty shall not:
4.1.2.1. Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue;

The rules see to allow free expression of opinions, except when coupled with official authority or influence. But the example cuts directly against that. And then there is this rule:

4.5. All members of the Armed Forces on active duty engaging in political
activities shall follow the examples and requirements in enclosure 3.

So the "examples" are rules also.

And then the examples allow this:

E3.2.6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member's
personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is not part of an
organized letter-writing campaign or a solicitation of votes for or against a political
party or partisan political cause or candidate.

I guess your blog is just a collection of your unpublished letters to the editor!!

You may well be right. I'm certainly no lawyer. But I'm not going to fight this in court, because it's not worth the cost. Blogging is a hobby. The Army is my career, not to mention my job.

But I'm not going to fight this in court, because it's not worth the cost. Blogging is a hobby. The Army is my career, not to mention my job.

Well, if you want to be all practical and stuff. ;-)

Andrew:

My advice as a lawyer is that these rules are too ambiguous to buck, and do not fight city hall on this. "Example" 3.3.9 seems to prohibit blog activity, and Rule 4.5 makes the "examples" essentially further rules.

Maybe you can revert to a blog as a personal diary rather than an advocacy forum. But its all about making the boss happy.

I appreciate the advice. If nothing else, cutting out the blog ought to free up an hour of writing a day. :)

I knew all those Red Sox advocacy posts would come back to haunt you.

Who knew the CSA was a Yankees fan?

Dear Powers That Be, If You Happen To Read This:

Andrew has reflected only credit on the armed forces. Any rule that prevents him from doing so is a rule that might bear rethinking.

Just Saying.

Plus, we will miss his posts.

Thanks,

Hilzoy

As dmbeaster opines, the regs are murky. Implicit in the observations here is that a fight will be likely (that is, that the Army will decide it's a violation). I was trying to think of another angle, a safe way to get an opinion and argue dmb's "editorial opinion" exception. (For example, the IRS issues advisory letter rulings). Even if it could be made, the downside of such a request is obvious- once made, the proverbial shot is fired, and the authorties could come after you for a pre-existing violations. The risk isn't worth it. Unfortunately, this makes dmb's conclusion the smart bet. It's just ashame- especially for your readers.

ndreway lmstedoay dot com.

Just a suggestion.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: