ABSTRACT
This chapter introduces the controversy over the use of milblogs as a space of public argument. It highlights how the shifting of public deliberation to online networks brings with it considerations not faced in similar historical contexts. Milblogs vary in quality and credibility, ranging from credible sources of news and commentary to biased and partisan screed. For some, milblogs are problematic because they risk undermining the objectives of defense and security policy. The seemingly recalcitrant conflict between operational security and access to First Amendment protections centers on the antagonism present between inter-related but mutually incompatible argumentative frames applied to the role of information and communication technologies within the military. The antagonisms that contribute to the deadlock in policy debates about milblogs reflect challenges familiar to critics of argument. Moreover, as a matter of free speech, milblogs will continue to test the boundaries of free speech jurisprudence.
