But the argument of who is or is not above rebuke, look at the circumstances of the case. A rather outspoken maverick shot her mouth off under duress when her mother had been abducted. The JAG filed against her. The courts had to rule that she defamed the army without any proof which is absolutely correct and subsequently borne out as well. She regretted those remarks and feigned stress of the moment and the court leniently accepted it . Realistically everyone got what they wanted. The maverick got her wings clipped(sort of), the JAG got their apology(sort of) and the Court was made to look good.We’re a democracy, or at least that’s what it says on paper we should be. If we can criticise politicians to the extent that we do, why do judges and generals clutch their pearls so easily?
I agree that accusations can be challenged, our courts are super weak when it comes to defending people against libel and defamation, but to lean on section 505 and 138 of the Penal Code is weak. Given the level of censorship seen in past years on such matters, I don’t like the use of these types of articles.