Blogging Soldier Silenced
The American military is all about fighting for freedom — except, it seems, when it comes to its own troops’ freedom of speech.
An Army soldier known for posting bold blogs about his experiences serving in Iraq has been forced to shut his site down. The man, known simply as “LT G,” never shied away from harsh or critical posts, often questioning his superiors and the general purpose of his mission.
Apparently, that went too far: On June 27th, LT G wrote that he had been “ordered to stop posting” because of “a rash posting on [his] part” (viewable here). A day later, his fiancee advised readers that the Army had ordered him to delete the blog entirely — just in time, ironically enough, for Independence Day. As of now, the blog is still available at this archive page.
The Army evidently passed a set of regulations last year governing what soldiers could say online. The security-minded intention is understandable, but it’s worth noting that LT G never used any real names of people or locations and wrote only about completed patrols.
Good thing these troops are putting their lives on the line to supposedly defend our freedom. We would award our illustrious and oft-celebrated honor, the TechCult Sarcastic Salute — but we wouldn’t want this site to get shut down, too. So we’ll just say bravo, Army. Keep up the double standards. The troops undoubtedly appreciate being denied the same freedoms for which they are said to be fighting.
I’m sure there are plenty of opinions on this one. Care to weigh in? Comment below.
Another proof that Europe is SOO much better than USA…
Uncle Sam have turned into big brother Sam, eh?
Once you sign up for the military, you forfeit any and all personal freedoms. If that wasn’t a requirement, you’d have a rather ineffective military.
@Benjamin, certainly the military has the legal ability to govern its troops’ public communications. The question I raise, though, is if it’s morally right for them to shut down a forum such as this man’s — where there is seemingly no violation being made or security risk being posed.
I don’t think LT G, from what I’ve read, ever questioned the fact that they had the power to tell him to stop posting. But did they have a legitimate reason to exercise that power in this case? That, to me, is the interesting question.