Where my free speech people at?

JohnHughsPartner

All-American
Nov 19, 2016
4,334
6,647
113
Oh no worries, I never liked you all of the time anyway and in fact, I gave you the badge that you use as your avatar, LOL. But that doesn't mean I can't respect your intelligence, writing skills and your knowledge of military matters. So no need to worry about what I think, just do you. We badly need more respectable conservative voices on the board, even if we disagree at times. ;)
Haha you think people worry or care what you think ?? 🤣🤣🤣
 

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
29,852
22,030
113
I'll have to do some research, tbh.

Recalling officers to active duty to get their pee pee slapped is not an everyday thing, but it happens. Recall to active duty is easy. reducting in rank to (last rank honorably served) is an admin thing. not crimminal. so that's the way that things normally go. burden of proof for admin action is a lot lower, options to contest more limited procedurally. Get recalled, get your public shaming, lose the rank(s), get your retired pay lowered and then get your *** kicked back out the door. The "censure" part is basically a strongly worded letter that will be placed in kelly's official file. Doesn't mean a thing, in practice. Still on active duty (pre-retirement) and it's career execution, retired guy? Doesnt' do a thing.. but it is is a the first shot. SecWar saying ... you did a no-no. Can leave it at that or can move on to try and grab a bigger bite, which is what i think is going on. We'll see.

The big unusual thing here is that normally (always?) the recall is about something that happend while on active duty that is now just coming to light, as opposed to him being held on active duty and prevented from retiring until he faced the music. An example woudl be, retired 0-6 (Colonel/Captain). It now comes to light that the guy somehow before getting promoted to 0-5 started wearing unathorized awards and somehow got those awards annotated in his promotion board file. You would say taht his promotion to 0-5 and then to 0-6 was partially due to his falsification of his awards so last rank served honorably was 0-4. He gets busted back to Major/Lt. Commander, has his retired pay reduced accordingly and probably fined to recoup some of the money that he has collected on top of that.

So that's what makes this whole thing really wild...like seeing a unicorn, wild.
We can argue if it was a smart move or not but it's especially wild considering it's just a statement of fact and something Hegseth himself has said many times in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

ANEW

All-Conference
Jul 7, 2023
2,192
3,106
113
@dpic73 , since you asked about appeals for senator marcia kelly, the best i can tell is that he has a limited time period to submit a written response to his notification of the retirement grade determination process that is underway. As this is an administrative action it's really up to the convening authority whether or not they want to give him an opportunity to make his case in person. (hint: they don't so he won't) The written response is his opportunity to make his case why he shouldn't have his retired rank/grade reduced. Highly unlikely that a written response is going to move the needle.

As an aside note, in plain english the logic that the admin is using to pursue this is that commissioned officers' retirement pay is not simply a payment for past service, it is also retainer pay as you are subject to the UCMJ and can be recalled even after retirement. So the admin is saying you did a no-no while still on the payroll so that makes the last rank honorably held the one prior to the one you have now, so we'll call you back to active duty, fix that, then retire you at the next lowest rank/grade.

As far as appeals after the written response (assuming that the secwar goes through with busting him), this is where it gets wild from what i can tell,. An appeal would have to go though a board at the service level (the Navy) . But the secwar is the final authority so the board would have to side against the hypothetial secwar decision to bust him and then recommend back to the secwar to reverse his own decision. Good luck with that.

After that waste of time, kelly could then appeal to a federal court. Normally that would be useless, but in this case, given that the "offense" wasn't from when kelly was on active duty and his position as a senator and the political nature of his job, you might get a court to hear him out on "protected speech" grounds. But with that said... retirement pay is not a right. So...

I personally think that kelly should be burnt with a blowtorch. He knew what he was doing and knew that he was actively fermenting mistrust in the chain of command. Very strongly insinuating that the chain of command had issued illegal orders or was highly likely to do so. I don't care who the secdef or potus is, you dont fu king do that.

There was talk a while back about Gen Milley, and... nothing happened. So that tells me that hegseth does get recommendation / findings that might go agains what he or potus might otherwise want and that he does listen to them, so there is that. Maybe to avoid this being a distraction going into midterms, secwar stops with the stongly worded letter and this goes away. Who knows? I'm guessing like everyone else.

Edit: spelling
 
Last edited:

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
29,852
22,030
113
@dpic73 , since you asked about appeals for senator marcia kelly, the best i can tell is that he has a limited time period to submit a written response to his notification of the retirement grade determination process that is underway. As this is an administrative action it's really up to the convening authority whether or not they want to give him an opportunity to make his case in person. (hint: they don't so he won't) The written response is his opportunity to make his case why he shouldn't have his retired rank/grade reduced. Highly unlikely that a written response is going to move the needle.

As an aside note, in plain english the logic that the admin is using to pursue this is that commissioned officers' retirement pay is not simply a payment for past service, it is also retainer pay as you are subject to the UCMJ and can be recalled even after retirement. So the admin is saying you did a no-no while still on the payroll so that makes the last rank honorably held the one prior to the one you have now, so we'll call you back to active duty, fix that, then retire you at the next lowest rank/grade.

As far as appeals after the written response (assuming that the secwar goes through with busting him), this is where it gets wild from what i can tell,. An appeal would have to go though a board at the service level (the Navy) . But the secwar is the final authority so the board would have to side against the hypothetial secwar decision to bust him and then recommend back to the secwar to reverse his own decision. Good luck with that.

After that waste of time, kelly could then appeal to a federal court. Normally that would be useless, but in this case, given that the "offense" wasn't from when kelly was on active duty and his position as a senator and the political nature of his job, you might get a court to hear him out on "protected speech" grounds. But with that said... retirement pay is not a right. So...

I personally think that kelly should be burnt with a blowtorch. He knew what he was doing and knew that he was actively fermenting mistrust in the chain of command. Very strongly insinuating that the chain of command had issued illegal orders or was highly likely to do so. I don't care who the secdef or potus is, you dont fu king do that.

There was talk a while back about Gen Milley, and... nothing happened. So that tells me that hegseth does get recommendation / findings that might go agains what he or potus might otherwise want and that he does listen to them, so there is that. Maybe to avoid this being a distraction going into midterms, secwar stops with the stongly worded letter and this goes away. Who knows? I'm guessing like everyone else.

Edit: spelling
Thanks for the thorough reply, I appreciate it - sounds like something that will be tough to push through, as it should be, and this is where I will disagree with you. I don't think he deserves a blowtorch because he, like many of us, have long expected Trump will use the military in some fashion related to the elections and he had already signaled that he'd like to see them "train" in large blue cities. I believe the 6 congresspeople were sincerely concerned he would use them in an illegal way to somehow punish his political opponents and that's why they felt the need to speak up.



For me, it would be sweet justice if the next president appoints Kelly to be the SecDef and he turns the table on Hegseth 😋
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,597
4,070
113
How is this not protected speech in your world view?
Military has it's own set of rules

How many were "fired" for not getting the COVID shot

To @ANEW's comments. I've been retired now for almost 40 years, but in the back of my mind was a statement made at my out briefing that I could be recalled to active duty (even though retired). I imagine that's still in effect.
I also agree 100% with @ANEW's comment that Kelly knew exactly what he was doing/saying and intent was to create questions in the minds of the soldiers/sailors about commands of their leadership.

What would be the reactions today if a couple of those in Delta decided that retrieving Maduro was an illegal order that they would not obey? Anyone else think there might be court martials. Most soldiers don't have legal training so putting them in a position to determine legality is somewhat nonsensical. Kelly knows this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ANEW

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,379
3,481
113
Military has it's own set of rules

How many were "fired" for not getting the COVID shot

To @ANEW's comments. I've been retired now for almost 40 years, but in the back of my mind was a statement made at my out briefing that I could be recalled to active duty (even though retired). I imagine that's still in effect.
I also agree 100% with @ANEW's comment that Kelly knew exactly what he was doing/saying and intent was to create questions in the minds of the soldiers/sailors about commands of their leadership.

What would be the reactions today if a couple of those in Delta decided that retrieving Maduro was an illegal order that they would not obey? Anyone else think there might be court martials. Most soldiers don't have legal training so putting them in a position to determine legality is somewhat nonsensical. Kelly knows this.

I think you're confused on what we're talking about. Piggy (who thinks telling people you'll pay them to murder someone should be protected speech) seems to think people should be locked up for saying "kill ICE".
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,134
22,700
113
I think you're confused on what we're talking about. Piggy (who thinks telling people you'll pay them to murder someone should be protected speech) seems to think people should be locked up for saying "kill ICE".
And no, i don't think anyone should be locked up for saying kill ice. Do you?
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,597
4,070
113
I think you're confused on what we're talking about. Piggy (who thinks telling people you'll pay them to murder someone should be protected speech) seems to think people should be locked up for saying "kill ICE".
well I think people should not be saying "kill ICE", but we shouldn't be locking them up for saying it.

I might be confused, but I was responding not to the "kill ICE", but to the military/Kelly post. sorry
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,379
3,481
113
Yes, that is my point.

Would you be OK if these people were arrested or would you scream abuse of authority?

And no, i don't think anyone should be locked up for saying kill ice. Do you?

You'll have to forgive me, you posted a tweet with no comment and you're a right winger so your motivations were unclear.

I think this is probably protected speech. It's not a specific call to action against a particular person. It could even be interpreted as end the agency and not kill any people.

That being said, I sure wouldn't have said it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,597
4,070
113
I think this sort of thing is usually protected speech, yes.
I'm not sure that providing locations of ICE is doxing, but
Yes, doxxing federal agents—defined as the malicious publication of private, personal information—is a federal crime in the United States, often prosecuted as a felony. Federal authorities, particularly within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ), have affirmed that revealing the identities, home addresses, or personal details of federal agents with the intent to intimidate or harass will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Legal Basis and Consequences
  • 18 U.S.C. § 119 (Protection of individuals performing certain official duties): This statute makes it illegal to knowingly publish, with intent to threaten or intimidate, restricted personal information (such as home addresses or phone numbers) of a federal officer.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers): Doxxing that leads to threats or physical harassment can fall under this statute, which carries penalties of up to 7 years in prison.
  • Conspiracy and Intimidation: Individuals, such as activists or protestors, have been indicted on federal charges of conspiracy to reveal protected information when they follow agents, livestream them, and publish their personal details.
  • Penalties: Convictions for doxxing federal agents can lead to substantial fines and imprisonment, with some charges carrying up to five years in federal prison.
Doxxing vs. Protected Activity
While citizens have a First Amendment right to record or photograph federal agents (such as ICE officers) performing their duties in public spaces, this right does not extend to "doxxing" them, which involves transitioning from observing public actions to targeting private lives.
  • Illegal Activity: Following agents home, publishing home addresses, or posting personal phone numbers with the intent to intimidate.
  • Protected Activity: Filming law enforcement in public and documenting their actions, even if the information is shared online.
Recent Developments
  • 2025-2026 Actions: The DOJ and DHS have increased efforts to crack down on doxxing, particularly against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, following a surge in threats and assaults on officers.
  • Proposed Legislation: In 2025, legislation was introduced (e.g., The Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act) to further strengthen penalties for making the names of federal law enforcement officers publicly available with the intent to obstruct their duties.
Disclaimer: This information is based on search results and does not constitute legal advice.









  • Santa Monica Man Arrested on Federal Criminal Complaint ...
    Sep 23, 2025 — LOS ANGELES – A Santa Monica man has been arrested on a federal criminal complaint charging him with doxxing – publishing private ...
    1768679222938.png
    Department of Justice (.gov)


  • Doxxing federal agents is a crime. Our federal partners WILL ...
    Jun 21, 2025 — 📢Doxxing federal agents is a crime. Our federal partners WILL prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. ☎️Report doxxing: 866-D...
    1768679222974.png
    X


  • Can You Be Arrested for Posting ICE Locations Online? What ...
    Oct 15, 2025 — Can You Be Arrested for Posting ICE Locations Online? What You Need to Know * Your Constitutional Right to Record ICE Agents. Let'
    1768679223002.png
    CTM Legal Group

    1768679223029.jpeg
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,379
3,481
113
I'm flabbergasted that they'd even consider addresses private information. If you're a renter then sure, I guess. But property tax information is all public. If you guys new my real name you could find my home address.

To your point, though, what was described also wasn't doxxing (and I think it's ridiculous to give federal officers special provisions. If anything they should have fewer privacy protections.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,597
4,070
113
I'm flabbergasted that they'd even consider addresses private information. If you're a renter then sure, I guess. But property tax information is all public. If you guys new my real name you could find my home address.

To your point, though, what was described also wasn't doxxing (and I think it's ridiculous to give federal officers special provisions. If anything they should have fewer privacy protections.)
someone asked the question
 

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,134
22,700
113
Wow - this is what FLAW wants here. They want to criminalize hate speech, and then they get to determine what hate speech is. Talk bad about Trannies and child abuse? Off to the gulag.

Europe is strangling themselves with regulation. America innovates while Europe regulates.

 

UrHuckleberry

Heisman
Jun 2, 2024
9,493
19,459
113
Wow - this is what FLAW wants here. They want to criminalize hate speech, and then they get to determine what hate speech is. Talk bad about Trannies and child abuse? Off to the gulag.

Europe is strangling themselves with regulation. America innovates while Europe regulates.


I would take this more seriously if you also posted in these threads against the things this administration has said or done against free speech. Because otherwise your words ring hollow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,134
22,700
113
I would take this more seriously if you also posted in these threads against the things this administration has said or done against free speech. Because otherwise your words ring hollow.
What in particular do you have a problem with? But you must have missed it, i was critical of the admin at the start of the thread im pretty sure. I said free speech was under attack from both sides and We The People need to defend it. The problem is, just view this thread. People don't really want free speech, they just want to be the arbiter of speech themselves. Just view this thread, it's a perfect example and i am criticizing posters from both sides.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: yoshi121374

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,379
3,481
113
Wow - this is what FLAW wants here. They want to criminalize hate speech, and then they get to determine what hate speech is. Talk bad about Trannies and child abuse? Off to the gulag.

Europe is strangling themselves with regulation. America innovates while Europe regulates.



You have the right to say whatever you want but you really ought to listen and understand more. You've been remarkably awful at understanding what people have said to you. If you can find anywhere that I've supported that I'll find a hat to eat but we both know you can't, because it's not true.

At the same time we also have crack downs on protests in this country so I find it deeply puzzling why you're pre-occupied with things that happen in other countries.
 

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,134
22,700
113
You have the right to say whatever you want but you really ought to listen and understand more. You've been remarkably awful at understanding what people have said to you. If you can find anywhere that I've supported that I'll find a hat to eat but we both know you can't, because it's not true.

At the same time we also have crack downs on protests in this country so I find it deeply puzzling why you're pre-occupied with things that happen in other countries.
Of course, you didn't say that specific thing. I am making an observation that you are for limits on speech. Would you agree with that statement? Because you have repeatedly said you are not a free speech absolutist.

And my point is, that people like you want to be the arbiter. We give you a little power, and now look what happens in Europe. And make no mistake, Europe has always been a shining example of the social democracy that democrats want. So it's not a giant leap to say they will adopt their views on speech.

Both sides need to respect absolute free speech. Otherwise, that leaves an arbiter. What is hate speech? Is saying you disagree with transing kids hate speech? Because thats speech was certainly regulated on Twitter when democrats were in control.

Absolute free speech is the way to go.
 
Last edited:

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,134
22,700
113
And no one is cracking down on peaceful protests. That is an absurd statement.

If protesters want to get violent, they no longer have the right to protest. It's in the constitution.
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,379
3,481
113
Of course, you didn't say that specific thing. I am making an observation that you are for limits on speech. Would you agree with that statement? Because you have repeatedly said you are not a free speech absolutist.

And my point is, that people like you want to be the arbiter. We give you a little power, and now look what happens in Europe. And make no mistake, Europe has always been a shining example of the social democracy that democrats want. So it's not a giant leap to say they will adopt their views on free speech.

Both sides need to respect absolute free speech. Otherwise, that leaves and arbiter. What is hate speech? Is saying you disagree with transing kids hate speech? Because thats speech was certainly regulated on Twitter when democrats were in control.

Absolute free speech is the way to go.

My point has consistently been that everyone is for limits on free speech, including you. You've been more consistent in your free speech absolutism than most, to be sure, as you have some profoundly stupid views. You just pretend your limits aren't related to speech when they very clearly are, you're just very good at twisting and ignoring arguments that are inconvenient to you.

Helpful for you to read up on: Slippery Slope Fallacy
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,134
22,700
113
My point has consistently been that everyone is for limits on free speech, including you. You've been more consistent in your free speech absolutism than most, to be sure, as you have some profoundly stupid views. You just pretend your limits aren't related to speech when they very clearly are, you're just very good at twisting and ignoring arguments that are inconvenient to you.

Helpful for you to read up on: Slippery Slope Fallacy
I'll take that description over a pompous ***hole that thinks he can determine what other people can say. No matter how stupid your views are i'll allow you to say them.

Can you answer a question for me. Is saying "Transing kids is wrong and anyone who participates in those activities should go to jail" ..... Is that hate speech?

Absolute free speech.
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,379
3,481
113
I'll take that description over a pompous ***hole that thinks he can determine what other people can say. No matter how stupid your views are i'll allow you to say them.

Can you answer a question for me. Is saying "Transing kids is wrong and anyone who participates in those activities should go to jail" ..... Is that hate speech?

Absolute free speech.

And yet you're extremely comfortable being the person who gets to decide what medical decisions parents can make in consultation with their children and the child's doctors. Hypocrite much?

We've all answered this question, repeatedly, you're just too dense to remember or it removes your favorite pastime of polluting the board with stuff that doesn't matter.

Yes it's probably hate speech. Yes, it should be legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,134
22,700
113
My favorite part is that its the government, not private companies making moderation decisions.
A private company, heavily influenced by the Biden admin. A private company that had all democrats in leadership positions, and a democrat board. Also, the deep state was heavily involved in Twitter. Lets tell the whole story.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: yoshi121374

fatpiggy

Heisman
Aug 18, 2002
24,134
22,700
113
And yet you're extremely comfortable being the person who gets to decide what medical decisions parents can make in consultation with their children and the child's doctors. Hypocrite much?

We've all answered this question, repeatedly, you're just too dense to remember or it removes your favorite pastime of polluting the board with stuff that doesn't matter.

Yes it's probably hate speech. Yes, it should be legal.

Cutting someone's d ick off is not a medical decision you creep.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: dpic73

dpic73

Heisman
Jul 27, 2005
29,852
22,030
113
A private company, heavily influenced by the Biden admin. A private company that had all democrats in leadership positions, and a democrat board. Also, the deep state was heavily involved in Twitter. Lets tell the whole story.
@UrHuckleberry, he doesn't know what you're referring to because he has me blocked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374