CAP Special Forces

[JeffDG]

Okay....satire is protected speech.

But "take down that site" is a legal order.  So the choice would be to take down the site or get 2b'ed.

Not from the referenced individual, who is not in the chain-of-command.  A C&D from anyone not in the chain of command would have precisely zero effect.

An appropriate response to such a letter would be "Thank you for your suggestion, but I think it's pretty clear there is no intent to deceive and I'll just keep it going."

No....not really.   The chain of command is not the only source of authority.   And if it were....the order would come from the National Commander....it may be written by the the legal officer....but like I said.    It is a legal order.  Intent is not a factor.

In this case, the chain-of-command would be the only source of authority.  There is no lawful basis, other than CAP member's oath to obey orders, that could direct the individual behind this site to take it down.  As such, a C&D letter from CAP's legal folks would have zero legal weight, and the recipient of such a letter would be entirely justified in saying "Thanks for your helpful suggestion, but this satirical site will continue to operate."

Such a refusal to follow the C&D letter would not constitute a failure to follow a lawful order.  Staff officers and other employees cannot issue lawful orders.  They can recommend to their commanders, but their actions themselves do not constitute lawful orders.

Additionally, I would suggest the person publish such a C&D letter to take full benefit of the Streisand Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) to drive traffic to his/her site.

I love how an organization which espouses a Core Value of Respect sees satire and their first reaction is to attempt to censor it.

[lordmonar]

a) I'm not say NHQ should send a C&D order.
b) You are mistaken about the legal officer's authority to make a legal order to a member of CAP about their online activities.
c) Respect is a two way street.   Satire is all well and good....but if....IF....a member conducts him/herself in a manner that brings discredit to the CAP....then they are in violation of a lot of regulations, our core values, and go leadership.
d) Even if this site remained up and CAP decided to ignore it.   Individual ramifications for the members involved could still happen.   Such as the suitability for leadership positions, promotions, or awards and decoration.
e) Cadets could be terminated under CAPR 35-3 Para 3.b.(1), 3.b.(2), 3.b.(4), 3.b.(5).  Seniors could be terminated under CAPR 35-3 para 4.b.(2), 4.b.(, 4.b.(9), 4.b.(10) and 4.b.(11).

So...like I said....an individual is free to do what ever they heck they want to.....but a CAP member is NOT.   If....IF the members were ordered to take down the site and the failed to follow that legal order then they would be subject to discipline.

[JeffDG]

So...like I said....an individual is free to do what ever they heck they want to.....but a CAP member is NOT.   If....IF the members were ordered to take down the site and the failed to follow that legal order then they would be subject to discipline.

If the members are identified (I certainly think C/Col Doe will be difficult to identify), and given an order by someone in the chain-of-command, then they either follow that order or face disciplinary action.

A C&D letter from a lawyer is not a lawful order.

A C&D letter from a lawyer will bring more disrepute upon CAP than this site ever will.

[lordmonar]

A C&D letter from a lawyer is not a lawful order.

A C&D ORDER from the National Legal OFFICER is very much a lawful order.

A C&D letter from a lawyer will bring more disrepute upon CAP than this site ever will.

Maybe.  But that would be NHQ's call.  Not yours and not mine.

[JeffDG]

e) Cadets could be terminated under CAPR 35-3 Para 3.b.(1), 3.b.(2), 3.b.(4), 3.b.(5).  Seniors could be terminated under CAPR 35-3 para 4.b.(2), 4.b.(, 4.b.(9), 4.b.(10) and 4.b.(11).

Let's look at those.

3b1/4b2:  Conduct unbecoming a member of CAP...tough case to make that making a satirical site is conduct unbecoming.  Perhaps the admins of CAPTALK are also subject to this.

3b2:  What false statements?

The posts on this page are not official statements of any persons or entities and fall under the speech category of "Satire", which is protected under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. This website provides fictional articles and information designed to be humorous to CAP members.

Accusing people of making false statements, calling them in effect, liars, is a serious charge, and I hope you can back it up.

3b4/4b9:  Serious wilfull violations of cap regulations or directives?  Which ones?  Again, a very serious charge that I'm certain you wouldn't make without some kind of evidence.

3b5:  You have evidence of a lawful order being disregarded?

4b8:  Substandard performance of duty...in order to say that, then this site would be the member's duty?  Seriously?

You've levied some serious charges, I presume that you would not do so without evidence, and I've not seen this evidence yet.  Perhaps you'd like to share.

[JeffDG]

A C&D letter from a lawyer is not a lawful order.

A C&D ORDER from the National Legal OFFICER is very much a lawful order.

It is not.  It's a suggestion.  Unless it comes from the chain of command, it's not a lawful order, and you cannot be considered insubordinate for politely declining the suggestion.

A C&D letter from a lawyer will bring more disrepute upon CAP than this site ever will.

Maybe.  But that would be NHQ's call.  Not yours and not mine.

[lordmonar]

First off I am not making any accusations....I'm simply mentoring CAP members on lines of authority and consequences of actions.

Having said that.

The evidence is right there in their site.
They say it is fictional.  They say it is satire.

Ergo....they are making false statements.  Just because it is all in fun....in not factor.

If the powers that be determined that the site was bringing discredit on to CAP...then they are perfectly within their DUTY to get the site shut down.

"Shut down the site" is a legal order.  It does not violate any law.  Failure to follow that order could result in termination.

Again...."chain of command" is NOT the only source of authority in CAP.   

The Legal Officer can issue orders....and failing to follow them can result in termination.

[JeffDG]

The evidence is right there in their site.
They say it is fictional.  They say it is satire.

Ergo....they are making false statements.  Just because it is all in fun....in not factor.

So, you'll be recommending a 2B for Dale Brown then.  He's a novellist, a CAP member, and has included CAP in some of his novels, ergo he's made "false statements" about CAP.

"False statements" doesn't mean what you think it means.  It means false statements that intended to be taken as truth, which these are explicitly not.  Your meaning is a complete and utter absurdity.

And you're wrong.  Lawful orders, for the purposes of insubordination, do need to come from the chain of command.  Staff officers advise.  They do not command.

[NIN]

Patrick, this one time, I really think you're off base on this one.

(I'm not saying I think that this site is a good idea...)

[lordmonar]

Okay.

Bottom line.

CAP could.....could....if they felt like it issue an order to these member to shut down the site.
If they failed to do so, they could be 2b.

That's the BLUF.

Should they?  Don't know, don't care.

[Alaric]

Why is this thread still open?

[Fubar]

Because it could turn into a uniform thread at a moment's notice.

[blackrain]

And there's still a debate to be had on whether or not they carry airsoft weapons during their operations. I mean train like you fight...right?

[Private Investigator]

So is the beret thing in or out for the CAP SF? I suggested green since blue has already been taken. 

[James Shaw]

So is the beret thing in or out for the CAP SF? I suggested green since blue has already been taken. 

Since their fictional, maybe we treat it like "Emporers New Clothes", and have their HQ at Area 51.

[raivo]

I'd probably start seriously questioning how badly I wanted to remain part of an organization that felt the need to crack down on teenagers trying to be funny (in, as best I can tell, a good-natured and non-offensive manner) and it's a little upsetting to see how many people support the idea of sending legal notices and terminating memberships over it.

While we're at it, we should probably also discipline everyone on active duty who contributes to the Duffel Blog.

[lordmonar]

I'd probably start seriously questioning how badly I wanted to remain part of an organization that felt the need to crack down on teenagers trying to be funny (in, as best I can tell, a good-natured and non-offensive manner) and it's a little upsetting to see how many people support the idea of sending legal notices and terminating memberships over it.

While we're at it, we should probably also discipline everyone on active duty who contributes to the Duffel Blog.

You have missed the point.   
Some one mentioned sending a C&D letter....and the rebuttal was that it was protected speech.
I then pointed out that CAP and CAP members don't have protected speech....just like AD military members.

I for one never said NHQ should crack down on them.....just that they could.

Also as an exercise in leadership......where does the line between "goon natured and non-offensive" and Insubordinate and Disrespectful exist? 

Where does having a good time at the expanse of CAP, PAWG, Hawk Mountain cross over into bringing discredit or defamation to the organization?

[raivo]

I'm not disagreeing, lordmonar, they certainly can - I was speaking more to the question of whether they should.

As far as the leadership question, I'm not a fan of drawing increasingly fine black-and-white lines in the sand to try and reduce every such question to a matter of what the "letter of law" says. If you end up having to make that decision, look at the facts, and pick your course of action. And, as a leader, be prepared for others to disagree with you - and if they're in a position to do so, find someone to replace you.

[rustyjeeper]

a) I'm not say NHQ should send a C&D order.
b) You are mistaken about the legal officer's authority to make a legal order to a member of CAP about their online activities.
c) Respect is a two way street.   Satire is all well and good....but if....IF....a member conducts him/herself in a manner that brings discredit to the CAP....then they are in violation of a lot of regulations, our core values, and go leadership.
d) Even if this site remained up and CAP decided to ignore it.   Individual ramifications for the members involved could still happen.   Such as the suitability for leadership positions, promotions, or awards and decoration.
e) Cadets could be terminated under CAPR 35-3 Para 3.b.(1), 3.b.(2), 3.b.(4), 3.b.(5).  Seniors could be terminated under CAPR 35-3 para 4.b.(2), 4.b.(, 4.b.(9), 4.b.(10) and 4.b.(11).

So...like I said....an individual is free to do what ever they heck they want to.....but a CAP member is NOT.   If....IF the members were ordered to take down the site and the failed to follow that legal order then they would be subject to discipline.

As an EX MEMBER of CAP the aforementioned individuals may feel free to contact me by PM and I would be most happy to take over the website as a satirical endeavor as a NON- Member there would be no "ramifications" possible in that case 

[Private Investigator]

So is the beret thing in or out for the CAP SF? I suggested green since blue has already been taken. 

Since their fictional, maybe we treat it like "Emporers New Clothes", and have their HQ at Area 51.

So we will have the first ever, "fictional uniform thread"? That is legendary