This post is surreal.
Neither were most of the soldiers at My Lai. And only one was ever convicted.
So what?
Are you seriously suggesting that we should never discuss anything on this board – or, presumably, anywhere else on the net – which might cause any one person “on the right” to file an entirely unjustified legal motion?
That’s absurd.
Insisting that it be clarified that what’s being encouraged is to disobey an illegal order would be reasonable.
Discussing whether there is some circumstance in which firing on unarmed civilians would not be an illegal order would be reasonable. Forbidding everybody from pointing out that illegal orders should not be obeyed does not strike me as a reasonable stance.
It seems unlikely that Tuba Diva believes that crimes are not crimes unless they are prosecuted, so I too am missing her point.
According to your cite, they were prosecuted. The article says the charges were dismissed by a federal judge.
Do you believe that it would have been a violation of federal law to have requested that those soldiers NOT fire at the unarmed college students?
That’s an astonishing historical reference, Tubadiva. I don’t even know how to respond.
No, that would not be my suggestion.
Agreed.
Or insisting that it be a discussion about what a soldier’s responsibilities are, ethically and morally, and how to approach that conversation with a family member, friend, or acquaintance in the military would be reasonable.
I agree, however, it was not a discussion about when and where you can get away with firing on unarmed civilians, it was a call to action to tell military members how to interpret their orders.
I know that people around here like to invoke the boogeyman of lawsuits as an excuse to be quick on the censorship trigger, but that’s actually unfounded. According to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, online internet forums are mostly immune to civil and criminal liability for what its users post. If it were otherwise, Twitter and Facebook would have already been sued out of existence.
I have no problem with SDMB taking the position that “we will not encourage or facilitate lawbreaking.” Fine. Hold firm to a principle of civic responsibility. Don’t hide behind “oh noes we might get sued.”
Shame on you.
My god, Tuba. You are playing devil’s advocate on the military shooting unarmed civilians?
On Thursday President Trump issued executive order 13925 which basically directs his cabinet to beg the FCC to reinterpret that particular section much more harshly.
~Max
Generals have stated that they would refuse to follow unlawful orders.
It may be reasonable to debate what is and is not an unlawful order but agreed with others here. The thread should be re-opened.
Question. Tangentially connected. Is any discussion that supports civil disobedience as a protest tactic verboten here? By definition those would be illegal acts. What would cross the fuzzy line? And no fuzzy is not a feature here. Call to action seems pretty meaningless. “Vote!” could be disallowed under that guidance.
shrug He can beg. The FCC can reinterpret. It still has to pass judicial muster, and the legal theory is pathetically weak.
Point being, for decades the SDMB has been using legal liability as an excuse for censorship even though section 230 clearly states they aren’t liable for what its users post. All mods, junior and official, should avoid hiding their censorship behind the fig leaf of “we don’t want to get sued”.
For the record I encourage the closing under “no calls to action”. That’s a good policy because a call to action by one board just invites reciprocal calls to action from nutballs on other boards. We’re fully stocked on nutballs as it is.
If you say so, I haven’t been here long enough to notice. I also think the post should have been closed as a call to action.
~Max
Just wanted to say that even though I was recently suspended for being a jerk, I don’t agree that the military should be allowed to shoot unarmed civilians. Unlike the staff here.
There are a couple of ways to parse that. I assume that you don’t think that the staff should be able to shoot unarmed civilians. 
Well, that would depend on the “stand your ground” rules in their particular jurisdiction.
But seriously, I am occasionally shocked by how amoral the mods can be here. Some honestly think having a rule book they follow is the same as a moral code. No, Jonathan. Politeness is not the highest calling.