Cadets Advertising CAP

[Archer]

Thoughts on this sort of stuff:
http://imgur.com/KUyPTnH

[Eclipse]

Nothing wrong with it, per se.

Most encampments, and certainly most missions, won't want members of any age live-blogging during the activity
or releasing information through any other channel the the PAO or IC.

[Archer]

Nothing wrong with it, per se.

Most encampments, and certainly most missions, won't want members of any age live-blogging during the activity
or releasing information through any other channel the the PAO or IC.

I recall something where it was firmly held that encampment was >not< basic training. And also the advertising of the M16 marksmanship phase. I don't know. It just didn't feel right so I wanted to see if any experts could put a finger on what I was feeling

[NIN]

Nothing wrong with it, per se.

Most encampments, and certainly most missions, won't want members of any age live-blogging during the activity
or releasing information through any other channel the the PAO or IC.

I recall something where it was firmly held that encampment was >not< basic training. And also the advertising of the M16 marksmanship phase. I don't know. It just didn't feel right so I wanted to see if any experts could put a finger on what I was feeling

So they get to shoot M16s?  Some of the cooler years as a cadet was when we got to familiarize with M-16s.  Or the year some people got to shoot M-60s.

Now, nobody was broadcasting that on FB in 1981, but you know...

There were still photos and such.

[Salty]

I don't see anything wrong with it per se, like Eclipse said.  However, some things are better left off the grid or handled by a PAO.

[Public Affairs Guy]

You cannot restrict what any CAP member says about anything, or when they say it, if they are posting on non-CAP social media. You can only restrict what is posted if it is on a official CAP social media site. You cannot abridge a member's personal 1st amendment rights. That being said, our Wing/CC really, really likes social media and encourages maximum use by all Wing members. As Wing PAO I tried to restrict social media usage by having any post on a SDWG social media site come to me for review before it is posted. Wing/CC said no.

[Alaric]

You cannot restrict what any CAP member says about anything, or when they say it, if they are posting on non-CAP social media. You can only restrict what is posted if it is on a official CAP social media site. You cannot abridge a member's personal 1st amendment rights. That being said, our Wing/CC really, really likes social media and encourages maximum use by all Wing members. As Wing PAO I tried to restrict social media usage by having any post on a SDWG social media site come to me for review before it is posted. Wing/CC said no.

You can't restrict what a member says, but saying it in public (Facebook, Twitter, CapTalk) can have consequences

[JoeTomasone]

I personally wouldn't include the specifics mentioned since every Encampment (even within a Wing) is/can be different - there's never been marksman training in FLWG that I am aware of, for example.   But the basic information, subject to some wee editing, is harmless enough.

[PHall]

You guys are seeing an "issue" where there is no "issue".

[Eclipse]

You guys are seeing an "issue" where there is no "issue".

Agreed - while the comment about encampments not being BCT is true, and needs to be better understood internally,
it doesn't overly impact the situation for non-members of the public to misunderstand.  As to the actual activities,
none of those are a secret.  Cadets are allowed to do firearms training when following CAP's rules,
though in this case it may well be laser-based training as getting live-fire time on a military base these days
is no small undertaking.

[Eclipse]

You cannot restrict what any CAP member says about anything, or when they say it, if they are posting on non-CAP social media. You can only restrict what is posted if it is on a official CAP social media site. You cannot abridge a member's personal 1st amendment rights. That being said, our Wing/CC really, really likes social media and encourages maximum use by all Wing members.

Of course you can, or perhaps you have forgotten the OPSEC training required of all members which includes an NDA?

CAP could restrict its members from even the mention of their involvement if it saw fit.  Don't like it?  Your only recourse would be to leave CAP.

The First Amendment does not apply, because as we are reminded on a regular basis, CAP is a private organization, free
to create whatever rules and policies it cares to.  The First Amendment restricts the government from restricting speech,
not private corporations or businesses.

Of course, the only ramifications of violating those CAP policies would be internal disciplinary action, and potential civil liability
if CAP could prove damages, but if you value your membership over your feed, you follow the rules.

[Garibaldi]

You cannot restrict what any CAP member says about anything, or when they say it, if they are posting on non-CAP social media. You can only restrict what is posted if it is on a official CAP social media site. You cannot abridge a member's personal 1st amendment rights. That being said, our Wing/CC really, really likes social media and encourages maximum use by all Wing members.

Of course you can, or perhaps you have forgotten the OPSEC training required of all members which includes an NDA?

CAP could restrict its members from even the mention of their involvement if it saw fit.  Don't like it?  Your only recourse would be to leave CAP.

The First Amendment does not apply, because as we are reminded on a regular basis, CAP is a private organization, free
to create whatever rules and policies it cares to.  The First Amendment restricts the government from restricting speech,
not private corporations or businesses.

Of course, the only ramifications of violating those CAP policies would be internal disciplinary action, and potential civil liability
if CAP could prove damages, but if you value your membership over your feed, you follow the rules.

You know, as a student of media law way back when, it always amazed me that people always screamed about "having their First Amendment rights trampled on." By who? Who by?

As a private citizen, I can say that Eclipse is an overbearing, swaggering, tin plated dictator with delusions of godhood, and I am perfectly within my rights as a PRIVATE CITIZEN. He can sue me, of course, because as much right as I have to say it, he has as much right to retaliate in whatever manner he sees fit, short of assault or murder.

When it comes to saying something derogatory, such as....oh, I don't know...he reminds me of a Regulan blood worm, or a Denebian slime devil, on the company dime, or on a privately held message board, while I am on company time, using company resources, then I can get smacked down by the corporation. Being fired, fined, censured, suspended, for saying something while in direct employ of said company can get you in a lot of hot water. The corporation can also put a clause in an employment contract that says as such.

The government can't interfere. They can't say "We're going to sue you into the gutter because you compared Eclipse's car to a garbage scow." Prior restraint. Against the rules.

So, say what you want. Be prepared for retaliation in one form or another.

[Eclipse]

!@#$% It!  Can't sue for libel when the statement is supported by evidence!

[Flying Pig]

You cannot restrict what any CAP member says about anything, or when they say it, if they are posting on non-CAP social media. You can only restrict what is posted if it is on a official CAP social media site. You cannot abridge a member's personal 1st amendment rights. That being said, our Wing/CC really, really likes social media and encourages maximum use by all Wing members. As Wing PAO I tried to restrict social media usage by having any post on a SDWG social media site come to me for review before it is posted. Wing/CC said no.

  Wow.... you actually tossed down the 1st Amendment   It has got to be one of the the most misunderstood Amendments we have.  The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with CAP.  And yes, organizations CAN control their message. 

[Flying Pig]

!@#$% It!  Can't sue for libel when the statement is supported by evidence!

You can.  Whether its tossed out or not is a different story.  Part of your defense would be proving that its true.

[Garibaldi]

!@#$% It!  Can't sue for libel when the statement is supported by evidence!

You can.  Whether its tossed out or not is a different story.  Part of your defense would be proving that its true.

I heard it from a reliable source. Klingons don't lie.

[Eclipse]

Yeah, well neither do Vulcans.  They simply "choose".

[RRLE]

I wouldn't be so quick to state that CAP doesn't fall under the First Amendment, at least in certain circumstances, since in some cases it is considered an instrumentality of the US.

10 USC 9442.b.2.

The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

Lawyers could have a field day arguing if a specific mission is assigned by SECAF or someone else and whether that assignment protects a member's First and other constitutional rights.

[Eclipse]

Lawyers can have a field day with anything, the FA doesn't apply to CAP, since they
can't legally restrict you from speaking, only civilly restrict your membership.

Huge difference.

[LSThiker]

Yeah, well neither do Vulcans.  They simply "choose".

Just watch out for those Romulans.