Cadet Conduct on Social Media?

[Flying Pig]

Sounds like it was more of a "who gets the last laugh" revenge on the part of the Wing Staff member.  The guy ruined some kids life to teach a lesson.  A lesson that could have been handled in a much better, more "adult" way.

How about pull the kid... yes, KID, aside and say "Let me teach you a valuable life lesson son.  Have you ever heard the term "Never bite the hand that feeds you." ?   Follow it up with "Do you know I have the ability to pull your academy nomination?"  Dont think this cadets wouldnt be shaking in his boots.  Instead, he got mad like a kid himself. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Sounds like it was more of a "who gets the last laugh" revenge on the part of the Wing Staff member.  The guy ruined some kids life to teach a lesson.  A lesson that could have been handled in a much better, more "adult" way.

How about pull the kid... yes, KID, aside and say "Let me teach you a valuable life lesson son.  Have you ever heard the term "Never bite the hand that feeds you." ?   Follow it up with "Do you know I have the ability to pull your academy nomination?"  Dont think this cadets wouldnt be shaking in his boots.  Instead, he got mad like a kid himself.

Worst part is that the kid never knew...totally defeats any "purpose".

[Flying Pig]

Yeah thats the part that made me mad.  Ill teach you a lesson.... even though you will never know you were taught a lesson.

[Eclipse]

+1, assuming it's true.  It has an apocryphal ring to it that is a little too "on target".

I'd bet a Venti it was puffing by someone trying to make a point.  Probably the better course for all involved
would be the face-to-face mentioned above, however, that might bring with it First Amendment! nonsense
as things things sometimes do.

The other side is that someone charged with using their experience to form an opinion about a candidate
for a coveted resource discovered something which in his opinion showed an attitude inappropriate for the recommendation.
He (purportedly) drew a line of integrity - don't we call out people all the time when they don't?
There are almost certainly 10 other viable candidates with equally impressive resumes who >didn't< call out his superiors in public.

So it was "Jill" instead of "Bill" because they were equally qualified and Bill decided to vent - it goes to decision making and choices.
Far more arbitrary life decisions are made every day, from the weight of your resume paper, to being 1 minute late to an interview
or calling someone the wrong name in a telephone call.

I've personally had a number of applications for staff jobs where the applicants can't even spell the job they are applying
for, their LORs have their names spelled incorrectly, or they have the wrong activity in the application.  Bottom line
if you have to make an "A/B choice".  No detail is too small, or off-handed comment to trivial.  It all counts.

Regardless, for those watching at home, especially you people - HEED THE MESSAGE.

[Flying Pig]

+1, assuming it's true.  It has an apocryphal ring to it that is a little too "on target".
I'd bet a Venti it was puffing by someone trying to make a point.  Probably the better course for all involved
would be the face-to-face mentioned above, however, that might bring with it First Amendment! nonsense
as things things sometimes do.

The other side is that someone charged with using their experience to form an opinion about a candidate
for a coveted resource discovered something which in his opinion showed an attitude inappropriate for the recommendation.
He (purportedly) drew a line of integrity - don't we call out people all the time when they don't?

Regardless, for those watching at home, especially you people - HEED THE MESSAGE.

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment? 

[Eclipse]

+1, assuming it's true.  It has an apocryphal ring to it that is a little too "on target".
I'd bet a Venti it was puffing by someone trying to make a point.  Probably the better course for all involved
would be the face-to-face mentioned above, however, that might bring with it First Amendment! nonsense
as things things sometimes do.

The other side is that someone charged with using their experience to form an opinion about a candidate
for a coveted resource discovered something which in his opinion showed an attitude inappropriate for the recommendation.
He (purportedly) drew a line of integrity - don't we call out people all the time when they don't?

Regardless, for those watching at home, especially you people - HEED THE MESSAGE.

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment?

Did you miss the word "nonsense"?   >I< didn't, just saying but mom might.
It doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean people don't think it does.

That cadet had every right to express his opinion, but the First Amendment doesn't shield one from
consequences of that speech.  That's what a lot of people miss.

[Flying Pig]

+1, assuming it's true.  It has an apocryphal ring to it that is a little too "on target".
I'd bet a Venti it was puffing by someone trying to make a point.  Probably the better course for all involved
would be the face-to-face mentioned above, however, that might bring with it First Amendment! nonsense
as things things sometimes do.

The other side is that someone charged with using their experience to form an opinion about a candidate
for a coveted resource discovered something which in his opinion showed an attitude inappropriate for the recommendation.
He (purportedly) drew a line of integrity - don't we call out people all the time when they don't?

Regardless, for those watching at home, especially you people - HEED THE MESSAGE.

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment?

Did you miss the word "nonsense"?   >I< didn't, just saying but mom might.
It doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean people don't think it does.

That cadet had every right to express his opinion, but the First Amendment doesn't shield one from
consequences of that speech.  That's what a lot of people miss.

Copy..... my misunderstanding .  It threw me off because I know you have been an "explainer" of how the 1A usually applies to the real world and I misread it and thought "huh?"

[JeffDG]

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment?

Did you miss the word "nonsense"?   >I< didn't, just saying but mom might.
It doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean people don't think it does.

That cadet had every right to express his opinion, but the First Amendment doesn't shield one from
consequences of that speech.  That's what a lot of people miss.

I'm as much of a "the first amendment doesn't apply to private interactions" guy as anyone.  CAP is a private entity, and you enjoy no 1st Amendment protections against any consequences from CAP for your speech except those CAP decides to provide you (ie. non-retaliation provisions in the IG regs).

In the cited story, however, the issue with with an Academy Appointment.  That's a citizen-governmental interaction, and that means that the full range of protections under the Bill of Rights applies.  If a person has a federal government benefit (which an Academy appointment is, and it eliminates any analysis of incorporation issues that you need  to deal with on State issues) taken away as a result of speech, such would need be reviewed under a strict-scrutiny standard.  I would find it unlikely that, were such a review undertaken, that the actions cited would stand up to the scrutiny.

[lordmonar]

I don't a whole lot about the academy vetting process.....but I'm pretty sure that that the academy liaisons and just "lose" an application and then that's the end of it.

He may have been speaking figuratively not literally about just tossing the application in the trash.

I would be really worried if an application can just drop off the world like that and then the applicant is done forever.

[AirAux]

All the liaison officer had to do was call the Academy and say the Cadet was no longer interested.  The liaison officer showed us the information from the Cadet's Facebook and it wasn't that bad.  It was the typical grumbling of the cadets about the old gray hairs and how they are not up to date on anything.  This was all brought to our attention the year following the incident.  I feel really bad and stupid for not reporting the liaison officer to the Academy in hindsight.  Having worked to get my son into the Academy and knowing the quality of the youth going to the Academy, I was so mad I could spit.  I chewed his arse at the Converence but he acted like he had done the right thing.

[Flying Pig]

Come on man.... you really cited the First Amendment?

Did you miss the word "nonsense"?   >I< didn't, just saying but mom might.
It doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean people don't think it does.

That cadet had every right to express his opinion, but the First Amendment doesn't shield one from
consequences of that speech.  That's what a lot of people miss.

I'm as much of a "the first amendment doesn't apply to private interactions" guy as anyone.  CAP is a private entity, and you enjoy no 1st Amendment protections against any consequences from CAP for your speech except those CAP decides to provide you (ie. non-retaliation provisions in the IG regs).

In the cited story, however, the issue with with an Academy Appointment.  That's a citizen-governmental interaction, and that means that the full range of protections under the Bill of Rights applies. If a person has a federal government benefit (which an Academy appointment is, and it eliminates any analysis of incorporation issues that you need  to deal with on State issues) taken away as a result of speech, such would need be reviewed under a strict-scrutiny standard.  I would find it unlikely that, were such a review undertaken, that the actions cited would stand up to the scrutiny.

No, it was an interaction between CAP members.  Based on that interaction, the liaison determined the cadet was not Academy material.  I don't like what happened,  but the cadet was not speaking out against the "government".    No different than if I make a comment on social media about my stupid grey haired squadron commander at CAP....who also happens to be the commander of the LE Air Unit Im trying to get into.    "No thank you, you weren't selected based on maturity issues."  If there would be a leg to stand on in this story, 1A isnt it. 

[JeffDG]

No, it was an interaction between CAP members.  Based on that interaction, the liaison determined the cadet was not Academy material.  I don't like what happened,  but the cadet was not speaking out against the "government".    No different than if I make a comment on social media about my stupid grey haired squadron commander at CAP....who also happens to be the commander of the LE Air Unit Im trying to get into.    "No thank you, you weren't selected based on maturity issues."  If there would be a leg to stand on in this story, 1A isnt it.

It was an interaction between CAP members, but in deciding to circle-file the appointment, he was acting as an agent of the federal government, and as a result, his actions could well be reviewed on first amendment grounds.  CAP as an organization doesn't decide who goes to the Academy, so the fact that he was a CAP member was coincidental.  Circle-filing the application was not within the scope of his CAP duty in any way.

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

[Eclipse]

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

Nuance, yes, but doesn't really change anything - "Free Speech" does not equal "Consequence-Free Speech".

What if he called out POTUS on a legitimate political point and advocated for his impeachment.

At a minimum, the example cited shows a clear lack of awareness of the potential consequences of a given action,
by presumably a senior-level cadet officer / senior in high school.

[JeffDG]

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

Nuance, yes, but doesn't really change anything - "Free Speech" does not equal "Consequence-Free Speech".

It DOES mean that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech.

What if he called out POTUS on a legitimate political point and advocated for his impeachment.

Absolutely 100% protected speech.  Political speech is the raison detre of the 1A and is entitled to even more protection than normal speech.  Advocating for impeachment of a government official is entirely appropriate speech.  Calling for physical harm to come to an official is a different matter.

If an AF Academy appointment were pulled because he said something, he would have a completely legitimate complaint about a 1A violation.

[THRAWN]

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

Nuance, yes, but doesn't really change anything - "Free Speech" does not equal "Consequence-Free Speech".

It DOES mean that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech.

What if he called out POTUS on a legitimate political point and advocated for his impeachment.

Absolutely 100% protected speech.  Political speech is the raison detre of the 1A and is entitled to even more protection than normal speech.  Advocating for impeachment of a government official is entirely appropriate speech. Calling for physical harm to come to an official is a different matter.If an AF Academy appointment were pulled because he said something, he would have a completely legitimate complaint about a 1A violation.

So you mean that you can be punished by the government for your speech. Quit trying to barracks lawyer this. The cadet screwed up. He put both boots in his mouth, and the Academy decided that they didn't want him. They have enough issues without accepting someone into their ranks who has an obvious issue with authority.

[JeffDG]

The difference here from you "maturity issues" is that the liaison admitted that he made a decision based upon his disagreement with the applicant's speech.  You're right, he could have said it was due to "maturity issues" but he didn't.

Nuance, yes, but doesn't really change anything - "Free Speech" does not equal "Consequence-Free Speech".

It DOES mean that you cannot be punished by the government for your speech.

What if he called out POTUS on a legitimate political point and advocated for his impeachment.

Absolutely 100% protected speech.  Political speech is the raison detre of the 1A and is entitled to even more protection than normal speech.  Advocating for impeachment of a government official is entirely appropriate speech. Calling for physical harm to come to an official is a different matter.If an AF Academy appointment were pulled because he said something, he would have a completely legitimate complaint about a 1A violation.

So you mean that you can be punished by the government for your speech. Quit trying to barracks lawyer this. The cadet screwed up. He put both boots in his mouth, and the Academy decided that they didn't want him. They have enough issues without accepting someone into their ranks who has an obvious issue with authority.

To be clear, I said that governmental punishment for speech is limited by strict scrutiny, which is a very high bar.

The example, calling for the impeachment of POTUS would not even come close to crossing that bar.  If someone were denied a government benefit for that they would have a very strong 1A case.

[AirAux]

The Academy didn't have anything to do with it.  It was the liaison officer who probably overstepped his bounds.  The Academy had decided to accept the Cadet.  The liaison officer, coincidently also the CAP Wing Legal officer, decided he didn't think the Cadet should go to the Academy.  I don't think the Academy delegated that authority to him. 

[Eclipse]

The Academy didn't have anything to do with it.  It was the liaison officer who probably overstepped his bounds.  The Academy had decided to accept the Cadet.  The liaison officer, coincidently also the CAP Wing Legal officer, decided he didn't think the Cadet should go to the Academy.  I don't think the Academy delegated that authority to him.

How does the Academy accept someone and then just "not"?

Those two things in bold do not go together.

[Ned]

Plus there is an elected official out there somewhere (most often a Representative or a Senator) who had apparently had their nomination overruled/ cancelled by some CAP guy.   It seems a little far-fetched that neither the Academy nor the elected official would have reached out to the cadet for confirmation.

Where is Snopes when you need him?

[AirAux]

Ned as one CAP Legal Officer to another, this is what happened.  All the liaison officer has to do is pick up the phone and call the elected official and tha Academy and say the Cadet is not interested anymore.  It does happen.  My son got selected for both the Academy and West Point.  He didn't go to West Point.  There was no congressional investigation about why??