[Box]

The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.

-Wearing pig-socks to antagonize the police while abusing your access to national TV exposure could be found within the confines of such breach.
-A military officer in uniform publishing such content in a public forum could find himself in an actionable position by posting his personal rantings.

That same illusion of unabridged freedom of speech must also include the content of the forum used to communicate.

Pig-socks at a party could hardly be considered a breach of peace
Pig-socks on national TV while refusing to stand during the national anthem...
opinions may vary

...a football stadium during a commercial event is NOT a public forum. Such an event is generally a non-public forum - the same reason you cant say "bomb" on an airplane.

Free speech is also something targeted at an individual.
This cadet was in uniform, in uniform violating standards by holding open his vest to display an unauthorized uniform garment, and in civilian clothes while conspicuously presenting his uniform on display. That means he is representing the US military and has no such freedom to speak his mind

So yes, the 1st amendment does a lot of things, but it is not a blank check.
colin crookeddick was wrong and so is this shitbird officer


These aren't just my opinions either, they are pulled from the Cornell Law School website.
free speech isn't all people think it is - it comes nicely packaged with certain degree of social responsibility