A newsletter sent last week by U.S. Army Garrison Rheinland-Pfalz contained a message saying, “You are not authorized to engage with the media.” A garrison spokesperson said the warning was not intended to be a blanket ban denying service members First Amendment rights. (U.S. Army Garrison Rheinland-Pfalz)
KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany — Members of a U.S. military community in Germany are being reminded to avoid speaking with reporters as military operations continue in the Middle East, guidance that experts say can blur the line between operational security and personal free speech.
The tension surfaced Friday, when U.S. Army Garrison Rheinland-Pfalz warned personnel in a widely distributed community newsletter that “YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE WITH THE MEDIA,” a message officials later said was not intended as a blanket ban.
The garrison is part of the sprawling Kaiserslautern Military Community. Dozens of dependents and civilians recently evacuated from Bahrain are staying temporarily in the Kaiserslautern area.
They left amid Iranian drone and missile fire, bringing few belongings, and are awaiting guidance on when they might return. Many have had to rely on community donations as they settle into temporary homes.
The garrison message cites media attempts to get information, quotes or opinions from military personnel about Operation Epic Fury, which began Feb. 28.
A message attached to an internal community newsletter, distributed last week by the U.S. Army Garrison-Rheinland Pfalz public affairs office, cited media attempts to get information, quotes or opinions from military personnel about Operation Epic Fury, which began Feb. 28. (Jennifer H. Svan/Stars and Stripes)
It directs readers not to share details about ongoing operations, speak to the media on behalf of government organizations or post information or requests for information to social media, even in closed groups.
Instead, it tells service members to take their questions to the chain of command and have a planned response such as referring media inquiries to the public affairs office.
Broad prohibitions against talking to the media are generally considered unlawful, according to legal experts.
Pentagon policy holds that troops’ “right of expression should be preserved to the maximum extent possible,” except where it would violate statutes or disrupt good order and discipline.
For example, laws prohibit troops from disclosing classified or sensitive information and bar commissioned officers from disparaging the president and other high-ranking officials. Ethics rules block federal employees from speaking on the government’s behalf without authorization.
While the military has no authority to restrict the speech of military spouses or family members, fear of informal retaliation can often result in self-censorship, military law experts say.
Such self-censorship resulting from vague or overly broad restrictions is called a “chilling effect.”
Independent reporting spurred by outreach from military members has helped bring attention to unclassified issues, such as living conditions and financial matters, that commanders later addressed.
The garrison’s guidance, which also warns against sharing information with strangers or people not well-known to a service member who is approached, could discourage displaced personnel and families from speaking up about their personal experiences or concerns, or from informally sharing news and advice.
In response to Stars and Stripes’ questions, the garrison clarified that the message was meant to reinforce guidance on not publicly discussing activities related to Operation Epic Fury, and to inform personnel about options to help those seeking information.
“We do not publish blanket prohibitions for our personnel, or family members, to engage with media,” garrison spokesperson Tammy Muckenfuss said in a statement.
The guidance was issued against a backdrop of Defense Department efforts to restrict media access at the Pentagon. The New York Times is challenging those restrictions in federal court.
The garrison’s original message made “all kinds of lights and buzzers” go off, said Eugene Fidell, an expert in military law who teaches at Yale Law School.
But a limited restriction on discussing operational details, as described in the statement to Stars and Stripes, may be permissible, he said.
“(The follow-up statement) narrows it and says you can’t talk about this operation, and I think that is a lawful requirement,” he said. “They should disseminate a revision, because at the moment they’ve put a chilling effect on the troops, and that’s not right.”
Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former president of the National Institute of Military Justice, agreed that the message could stifle legitimate free speech.
A boldfaced line written in capital letters and large font stating that troops are not authorized to engage with the media seems to constitute a blanket prohibition, she said.
While its caveats related to the specific operation are reasonable, she said, her concern is that troops might not read beyond that first line.
“There’s definitely a chilling effect by coming across in such a heavy-handed fashion,” she said.
Some may argue that’s good, citing the adage that “loose lips sink ships,” she said. But service members are still entitled to voice opinions about their experiences while being mindful of operational security.
For example, sailors may raise concerns about poor conditions on an aircraft carrier as long as they don’t reveal details about the carrier’s location, she said.
“We don’t want an over-extension of the chilling effect into information that will help protect service members or appropriately treat them the way they’re supposed to be treated,” she said.
Stars and Stripes reporters Chad Garland and Jennifer Svan contributed to this report.
