Well, there it is. All that stuff is going on, all the elements surging around us in those curious distinct bands of info and misinformation. As a matter of custom, we will avoid talk about the contents of all those little bullets to avoid liability in case of abrupt changes of law.

On this morning, the disclosure of sensitive classified information from DoD through a young person in an Air Guard unit is just one of little mysteries in play. It hits closer to home than some of the other strings. Some of us handled similar data in the same message formats when we were still active in the business. It is a positive relief to no longer be responsible for the intricate interplay of truth and fiction.

It is part of another DC dance we have been told to stay away from. It could be viewed as part of the hysterics about the next election, which naturally we share with everyone. In order to keep the volume down on the panoply of the political parade, we watch it carefully for commentary that could affect our little group of Old Salts.
Salty old logo.jpg
(This Image Approved for General Non-Attribution Release by Socotra House Legal Section LLC, 1968. Original lo-res art Copyright WER, 1947).

We got a jolt this morning. We thought the matter of creative vulnerability had been solved after we got the short note from a serving Government official a few months ago. It was a formal little thing addressed to retired Soldiers, Salts and Airpersons (word under review by Legal) containing a direct reminder of potential prosecution under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It wasn’t quite clear what specific charge might be applied, but that is part of our evolving system. We looked it up. The text directs punishment of retired personnel for criticism of serving government officials. Legal says we should use the right word, since “criticism” is not the word. The one in the law is “Contempt.”

We are a generally agreeable band of Salts and hold no one, particularly those officials specifically identified in law, in anything like “Contempt.” We adjusted our posture, as you may have noticed. We are committed to fully work with Legal to craft commentary that is compliant with direction and tailored specifically not to directly hurt anyone’s feelings who may be specifically referenced by title or position. Since that product might not be amusing, we are investing in Artificial Intel that can mimic irony and save a lot of time before lunch.

The Legal Section is monitoring all outbound correspondence by the self-employed creative section whose views may, or may not, reflect actual Socotra House opinion as they claim both or neither. That ambiguity is inherent, since it was last tested in a court of law back in the Wilson Administration. Later, the issue bounced through the uncertainty of the Pentagon Papers in the days of Vietnam. It was found to be equally ambivalent in those times, although it might be equally up in the air at the moment. Legal suggested we post our standard footnote in the text, the one posted continuously on the Socotra web page: “We currently have NO contempt for anyone specified by position in the Articles associated with the Uniform Code.”

That safeguard would have sufficed, according to the litigators. We await whatever position the lawyers tell us to take to avoid controversy and legal consequence. We will not ask their advice on whether or not it is effective humor. We are hoping the AI thing works out, but recognize our AI product may be reviewed only by AI algorithms. Which adds another layer of ambiguity on this.

DeMille is our spokes-person. He has proposed a new footnote for permanent posting, which says that “Socotra House and Independent Contract Staff do not necessarily agree with content prepared and reviewed by non-humans.” We hope Legal likes it. All without a shred of contempt for anyone specifically exempted by US Code, whether they deserve it or not and for which we claim only partial bewilderment, you know?

That is what got us going this morning. Legal’s note said Article 88 charges can be based on the meaning and use of a word called “contempt.” We took a poll to see if that was an expression any of us might use for those now serving where we once did. There was a comfortable positive trending line in response stating we wouldn’t if it would cause trouble. You can see from the relevant citation, which directs us not to “use contemptuous words against the President, Vice President, Congress, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of a military department, Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or Possession in which he is on duty or present.”

Punishment is stipulated as being whatever a Court Martial might determine. This being a military court, there are all sorts of unique options.

Plus, there is considerable nuance in this matter. Some sources not directly employed by the legal section suggest that retired military members would only be so charged in the event of a really serious case of contempt.

That is something now included in the editorial review process. We have two interns who crafted a large white-board of interlocking layers of Government Officials for whom “contempt” might be applicable. The Legal folks say we can mention “breaking” stories, since at least two narratives will be incorporated in anything new. But there are multiple layers to that, which occupied consumption of the first full 200-cup pot of Chock Full O’ Nuts. The view from Legal is that we may not express contemporary contempt directed at anyone specifically, since any of them could be elected, post facto, to a designated position for which such emotion can be charged as an offense.

We responded with a strong memorandum restricted in distribution and tinged with enough sanctimony to be blameless in a court of military justice. As with other matters under consideration these days, we have proposed a cognitive state more accurately reflecting our position. The working title on the memo was “Bewilderment Is Not Contempt.”

We are waiting for a response from Legal to clarify our status while minimizing vulnerability. They may have an acceptable alternative word to use. In our experience, they usually come up with something

Copyright 2023 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com