Facebook and Social Media Now Illegal for CAP?

[AngelWings]

Way to go folks, acting like a bunch of jerks.

The adults were bad enough, but where did you cadets ever get the idea being so disrespectful is acceptable?

Where did calling people idiots go become acceptable. It is a two way road, and I refuse to show respect to someone who does not show it to me. Your point, which comes from a good place, does not apply to this situation. I expect everyone here to be held to the same standard. If we are not, than we should be flagged with either cadet or senior member, so we can clearly identify what standards we abide by. And what des that say for Senior Members, that they are allowed to pick on people, but cadets are not? Sorry if you find this disrespectful, but I am troubled by the double standard.

[abdsp51]

Tit for tat is not always the best or logical course of action.  And should one party use a negative remark does not mean another should return in kind.  And you will find that life is full of double standards.

[davidsinn]

Tit for tat is not always the best or logical course of action.  And should one party use a negative remark does not mean another should return in kind.  And you will find that life is full of double standards.

I firmly believe the world would be a better place if more idiots, were told they were idiots. Less diplomacy, more honesty.

[abdsp51]

Tit for tat is not always the best or logical course of action.  And should one party use a negative remark does not mean another should return in kind.  And you will find that life is full of double standards.

I firmly believe the world would be a better place if more idiots, were told they were idiots. Less diplomacy, more honesty.
[/quote

I agree, but as with everything there is proper way to go about it.

[PhoenixRisen]

Interesting how someone would think this kinda crap applies to CAP, when the military has loads of content out in the open...  I guess we're just too high-speed secret-squirrel for them.

[a2capt]

LOL - I've been called worse, for less. What the heck. It's still laughable and absurd.

[AngelWings]

Tit for tat is not always the best or logical course of action.  And should one party use a negative remark does not mean another should return in kind.  And you will find that life is full of double standards.

I firmly believe the world would be a better place if more idiots, were told they were idiots. Less diplomacy, more honesty.

That makes two of us. I'm a very blunt honest person. Diplomacy today means not hurting feelings and letting problems persist until a solution can be made that won't hurt someones feelings. I can say some of the biggest lessons I learned so far in my time came with hurt feelings.

[usafcap1]

Its impossible to remove 70 years of this, that and the other. And if you can't tell us who "THEY" are; than someones yanking your chain or your messing with us. Are you afraid that if you tell us who "THEY" are that the people in the black vans will snipe you from two miles away?

[usafcap1]

Yes, it OK for CAP to have webpages, etc, and it's OK for squadrons to post stuff with approval. But, now it seems that you or I posting a picture of us in uniform or standing next to a plane or any pictures taken from the plane, etc... are illegal. And the reason I am being coy with the facts here is that I suspect "they" will even be upset with me posting about it. You also can't say/write anything that anyone might see as negative in any way about CAP or it will come back to haunt you.

CAP and or the GOV don't have enough money to remove 70 years of information. Is just not possible.

[usafcap1]

Nope, we're the CAP not the CIA.   

Exactly you're absolutely right CAP is "NOT" a Black Ops organization. Matter of fact we are far from it. And until we are told other wise we will never be.

[usafcap1]

I am but a lowly lieutenant reporting what I was told by command above me.

I still have my doubts you are even a member.

well i wouldn't go there he maybe new at it.

[FW]

No posting of anything on FB or other social media except through official channels. Was discussed at recent conferences. National is involved. So I am being told.

   The National Board has made several attempts to create guidelines for posting on social networking sites and internet "blogs".  However, a certain mention of something called the "1st amendment" to the US constitution always halted further discussion.  I think there is a group still trying to figure out a way to sync our freedom of speech with the need to protect the good name of Civil Air Patrol. There is also CAPR 110-1. This is NOT an attempt to ban anyone's freedom to post opinions, pictures, facts, BS or, other such materials here on CT and other sites.

Now, I'm going back to eating some buttered popcorn to enjoy the rest of this...

[usafcap1]

I once saw a guy run off for taking a picture of a ramp full of our birds at a public airport...

Sent from my HTC Incredible 2 using Tapatalk

But taking pics at any airport is bad, ever sense 9/11 is a NS risk. I was taking pics of my car in the parking lot and got maybe two pics in and TSA swarmed around me took my cam and that was that.

[stillamarine]

The Region PAO came by last night and we spoke for awhile. He stated as far as photos on social media go that you follow the same guidelines you would for any other press release. He also stated National is very supportive of social media. In fact he reminded me that their is a class from the 2008 PAO Academy on social media that is available online.

[JeffDG]

I once saw a guy run off for taking a picture of a ramp full of our birds at a public airport...

Sent from my HTC Incredible 2 using Tapatalk

But taking pics at any airport is bad, ever sense 9/11 is a NS risk. I was taking pics of my car in the parking lot and got maybe two pics in and TSA swarmed around me took my cam and that was that.

That's a load of bullpuckey.

Taking pictures at an airport does not pose any risk to national security...whether before or after 9/11.  I would have asked those TSA maroons what legal authority they had to take your camera in a publicly accessible parking lot. 

Modified to add a really handy document for photographers:  http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

[RRLE]

However, a certain mention of something called the "1st amendment" to the US constitution always halted further discussion.

Aw, the old First Amendment canard. The first amendment bars federal government interference with the protected rights. Via the 14th Amendment those protections are extended to restricting state government action. There are no First Amendment rights assertable against private persons or corporations, which CAP is, with some exceptions such as shopping malls that function as the modern commons.

The only thing that bars CAP from attempting to restrict the alleged and non-existent free speech rights of its members is the fear the members will quit if CAP goes overboard and overbroad.

[JeffDG]

However, a certain mention of something called the "1st amendment" to the US constitution always halted further discussion.

Aw, the old First Amendment canard. The first amendment bars federal government interference with the protected rights. Via the 14th Amendment those protections are extended to restricting state government action. There are no First Amendment rights assertable against private persons or corporations, which CAP is, with some exceptions such as shopping malls that function as the modern commons.

The only thing that bars CAP from attempting to restrict the alleged and non-existent free speech rights of its members is the fear the members will quit if CAP goes overboard and overbroad.

While I am generally one to make the "1st Amendment doesn't apply to private organizations" remark...CAP is kind of a hybrid public-private organization.

While I think it would be undeniable that CAP could restrict members publishing information about corporate events without running afoul of the1st Amendment (as a private organization), once you cross into the "Acting as an instrumentality of the United States" territory (for example on an A5 SAREX), you would probably be subject to 1st Amendment protections.

[davidsinn]

I once saw a guy run off for taking a picture of a ramp full of our birds at a public airport...

Sent from my HTC Incredible 2 using Tapatalk

But taking pics at any airport is bad, ever sense 9/11 is a NS risk. I was taking pics of my car in the parking lot and got maybe two pics in and TSA swarmed around me took my cam and that was that.

This guy owns a hangar on that particular airport. The ramp was directly visible from a county road and a state highway. This was a major exercise that was given a lot of media coverage. Running an av-fan off is not a good idea in that case.

The TSA is a bunch of fascist goons and a complete and total joke. Their very existence is an affront to the constitution.

[Pylon]

Besides rampant unsubstantiated rumor trolling, we've now delved right into name-calling and politics.  I'd say we've crossed several lines here.  Recall, please, that this forum is primarily for sharing information of professional interest and use for fellow CAP members.  We're not a rumor mill.  And while confirming confusing matters or sharing pertinent new information can be an important part of keeping abreast as a volunteer professional, this "rumor" is clearly unsubstantiated in any form (and fairly outlandish to begin with); if the OP legitimately wanted to know if this was true, I think we've all included sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Since this is effectively resolved and the direction of the thread has now devolved into politics, name-calling, and mockery: lock.