The Military Section of the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal presented by a First Sergeant of the Navy against the resolution of the Minister of Defense, of 3 March 2022, wich imposed the disciplinary sanction of disqualification from service, for the publication and dissemination of texts and videos on their personal accounts/profiles on the social network Facebook, between 2016 and 2019, against institutions such as the Crown or the judiciary, and political parties and leaders, identifying themselves as military and appearing in uniform.
The confirmed resolution considered him the author of very serious crimes consisting «in the carrying out of disrespectful acts or in the public dissemination of expressions or demonstrations contrary to the Crown and other constitutionally recognized institutions and bodies, when serious or repeated», and in the repeated violation of the “duties of political neutrality”.
The resolution concluded that the disrespectful acts and violation of the duty of political neutrality were committed by the applicant through the constant publication and dissemination of texts and videos on his personal accounts/profiles on the social network Facebook (called “College of infidels in Crom” and the second wiht the name of the sergeant).
The sentence specifies that, as indicated in the same resolution, «in said texts and videos (the latter recorded in his office and in which the appellant appears dressed in uniform), he expresses his opinions «in contemptuous, insulting and offensive terms». ” and directs “serious accusations and interdictions against some constitutional bodies and civil authorities, which he freely and generally accuses of committing arbitrary and even illegal acts”.
The dossier also showed that the sergeant had drawn up a document entitled ”Kicks, teachings and revelations of P…. 1 Prophet of Crom. Praise be to Crom and his whore mother”, which is presented as the founding document of the religious association of the same name; This organization was founded by the defendant himself. Hear the sergeant also clearly identifies himself as “military” (an additional condition which he uses to argue his statements), and he explains his vision of life and expresses his opinion on numerous political and social aspects.
The sentence indicates that, in his request form, the applicant presents himself as the founder, Prophet and High Priest of a religion and a religious organization he created, called “College of the Infidels in Crom”, he defends that his profile in network is the exponent of said religion, and claims that in all his publications he does not speak as a soldier “but as a representative of a religion”, claiming that in said publications “he limits himself to expressing his opinion in relation to various topics such as Prophet and the Supreme Sukinsin (never a natural person).”
The Supreme Court responds that «the behaviors for which the appellant was in any way sanctioned cannot be protected by his right to religious freedom, guaranteed by article 16.1 of the Constitution, which is in its internal dimension (field of thought), both as in its external dimension (the right to freely express and communicate to others one’s thoughts and beliefs or convictions and the right to put into practise one’s religious faith or beliefs or convictions of any kind) has not been, in any way, severed or limited”.
“The appellant – add the magistrates -, through his Facebook profiles, is creating numerous publications (in which he does not hide his military status and sometimes appears dressed in uniform, during working hours and in his office) of the Arsenale ) in which he expresses his personal opinions and political criticisms on all kinds of issues with contemptuous, abusive and offensive comments against certain constitutional bodies and civil authorities, which he freely and generally accuses of committing arbitrary and even “illegal” acts.
Such as, according to the ruling, in the documents “the King is accused of surrounding himself with thieves and asks him to lead a coup d’état; call the president of the government irresolute and venal; to the mayor of Madrid for illegally favoring casinos and gaming halls; the judiciary as corrupt and dominated by far-right acolytes, to the point of calling the National Court the “National Court”, also making serious accusations against the Constitutional Court”.
What are the legal ramifications for military personnel who express political opinions on social media while in uniform?
Time.news Interview: Navigating the Boundaries of Service and Free Speech in the Military
Editor: Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. we have with us Dr. emily Carter, a legal expert on military law and ethics.Welcome, Dr. carter.
Dr. carter: Good morning! I’m glad to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Recently, the Military Section of the Court of Cassation upheld a disciplinary sanction against a First Sergeant of the Navy for posting content on social media that criticized various institutions, while identifying as a military member and appearing in uniform.What are your thoughts on this case?
Dr. Carter: This case highlights a complex intersection of free speech, military discipline, and political neutrality. The court’s decision to reject the sergeant’s appeal emphasizes the military’s commitment to maintaining order and discipline,especially regarding the expectations placed on service members when they express personal opinions.
Editor: Indeed, the ruling noted that the sergeant’s actions constituted “disrespectful acts” against the Crown and institutions of governance.Can you explain why such actions were deemed serious violations?
dr. Carter: In military law, there is a high standard for conduct, especially concerning the image and credibility of the armed forces. By publicly criticizing the Crown and the judiciary while in uniform, the sergeant not only breached the expectation of political neutrality but also potentially undermined public trust in military institutions.The perception of military personnel as unbiased is crucial for the functioning of democratic societies.
Editor: Some may argue this infringes on free speech. Where do you think the line is drawn between an individual’s right to express themselves and the obligations of military personnel?
Dr. Carter: That’s an excellent question. The military has unique requirements when it comes to conduct because service members are representatives of the state. While free speech is a fundamental right, military personnel are held to stricter standards due to their role. The expectation is that they do not engage in political discourse that could be perceived as official military position or could affect morale and discipline.
Editor: How do you view the implications of this ruling for other military personnel who might be tempted to express their opinions online?
Dr. Carter: This ruling serves as a stern warning. it reinforces the importance of understanding the consequences of one’s actions,especially on social media,where statements can reach a vast audience in seconds. Military personnel should be aware that their online personas can impact their careers and the reputation of the service. It encourages mindfulness about what can be shared publicly to avoid disciplinary action.
Editor: what advice woudl you give to military members regarding their presence on social media and the potential risks involved?
Dr. Carter: My advice would be to thoroughly understand both the regulations governing military conduct and the potential ramifications of their online activities. They should strive to maintain a clear distinction between personal and official communication, especially when it pertains to sensitive topics like governance and military affairs. Engaging in discussions that could compromise their professionalism or neutrality could lead to significant consequences.
Editor: Thank you, Dr.Carter, for those insights. This issue certainly brings to light the careful balance between individual expression and the responsibilities that come with service. We appreciate your expertise today.
Dr. Carter: Thank you for having me. It’s been a pleasure discussing this important issue!
