This makes no sense, my boss has seen my facebook page, and has said nothing of a violation. Even though it is very obvious I support a specific candidate. And am suggested not to. Also, on my facebook it even says I am in the ARNG. (national guard).
Either way I see a restriction of speech as the same as any restriction on speech, wrong. (Active duty personnel is different because they serve in an official capacity) and getting entangled within politics while active can push people to be insubordinate.
I believe the case of my facebook being a private collection of my thoughts over the course of time, and is such an expression of myself, who I am, what I believe. If at anytime in our history save for the initial revolution to become our country it has ever been more needed for American's citizens to speak out, that time is NOW. And no amount of rules and regulations can prevent that speech. They may limit it, but the intent of the Constitution was to allow all members a voice in this democratic republic. Those voices have been stifled, wrapped and nested within miles of regulations, so much so that if one person say something and another feels victimized over it, the victim can sue and win. Politically correct does not exist as a tool to help free speech but to stifle it.
Two things one has to consider when taking action that could be in violation of any laws or regulations:
First, is the consequence worth it?
Second, Is there a better way to say the same thing, in a different way that would not lead to said consequences?
If The first answer is yes, and the second no. (due to viability of the message or speech gaining traction) Then do it but know what your rights are and how to defend them.
"4.3.1.2. Include or permit the inclusion of their current or former specific military duty, title, or position, or photographs in military uniform, when displayed with other non-military biographical details. Any such military information must be accompanied by a prominent and clearly displayed disclaimer that neither the military information nor photographs imply endorsement by the Department of Defense or their particular Military Department (or the Department of Homeland Security for members of the Coast Guard); e.g., “John Doe is a member of the Army National Guard. Use of his military rank, job titles, and photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement by the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.”
As far as what Mr. Kokesh does, it is ultimately his choice, and if the laws of this country, and attempts to change said laws via representation has gone to no avail, then is there no further option than highlighting support of a candidate via a rally, or a message? That war is still killing and killing is still wrong? How does this constitute a problem with rallying members of an organization/ or ex-members to show solidarity within a specific group, and only that group that is present and not implying that the remaining portions of those groups feel the same way. Are we to disclaimer all speech in case it may get misinterpreted? Is this Freedom?
Conspiracy to culminate a revolution is going to be illegal, before the Revolution is successful.
