Every individual across the globe is entitled to protection of human rights, and this is stressed in the International Bill of Human Rights which opines that every individual should enjoy the freedom of speech, except when under specific conditions or professions. In the United States, military officers do not enjoy the freedom of speech. Army officers in the US must carefully assess what they speak of in public or post in social media sites. According to Blair (2013), there are instances when an army officer’s speech can be considered as dangerous because it may interfere with or prevent the orderly accomplishment of an army officer’s mission. A military officer’s speech can also be considered dangerous if it clearly threatens loyalty, discipline, or morale of the troops. For example, in the United States versus Wilcox case, there are specific categories of speech such as obscenity, child pornography, defamation and incitement that are not protected by freedom of speech.
According to the posts of the active duty service member on his Face book page, not a sane person would dare post such sentiments. The posts can be described as obscene hence cannot be protected by the freedom of speech. Bearing in mind that the owner of the post is a military officer, the speech is a big threat to his loyalty to President Obama, who is the overall commander of the military forces. The service member should be held responsible and punished for his posts because, in a wider perspective, the speech could have a negative impact on the morale of troops. Moran (1980) articulates that US military officers must come to terms with the fact that they need to assess carefully what they speak or post in public.
Blair, D. C. (2013). Military Engagement: Influencing Armed Forces Worldwide to Support Democratic Transitions. Washington: Brookings Institution Press
Moran, M. F. F. (1980). Free Speech, the Military, and the National Interest. Air University Review, 109.