for those who want to read the actual result of her first appeal that upheld her conviction. (rather than having it filtered )
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2784127/united-states-v-sterling/".... After receiving evidence and hearing argument, the military
judge found that the “orders were given because the workspace in
which the accused placed the signs was shared by at least one
other person[,] [t]hat other service members came to the
accused’s workspace for assistance at which time they could have
seen the signs. The court also finds that the signs, although
the verbiage . . . [was] biblical in nature, read something to
the effect of no weapon found [sic] against me shall prosper ...
which could easily be seen as contrary to good order and
discipline.” 18 Although these meager findings of fact fail to
illuminate why the military judge believed the signs verbiage
“could easily be seen as contrary to good order and
discipline[,]” we are able to glean from the record sufficient
information to affirm his ruling.
First, the military judge found that the signs verbiage was
biblical in nature, that the desk was shared with another
Marine, and the signs were visible to other Marines who came to
the appellant’s desk for assistance. The implication is clear—
the junior Marine sharing the desk and the other Marines coming
to the desk for assistance would be exposed to biblical
quotations in the military workplace. It is not hard to imagine
the divisive impact to good order and discipline that may result
when a service member is compelled to work at a government desk
festooned with religious quotations, especially if that service
member does not share that religion. The risk that such
exposure could impact the morale or discipline of the command is
not slight. Maintaining discipline and morale in the military
work center could very well require that the work center remain
relatively free of divisive or contentious issues such as
personal beliefs, religion, politics, etc., and a command may
act preemptively to prevent this detrimental effect. To the
extent that is what the military judge determined to be the
case, we concur. 19...."
"... Second, examination of this record indicates the existence
of a contentious relationship between the appellant and her
command, even prior to the charged misconduct. In fact, the
appellant testified that her purpose for placing the signs was
to encourage her during those difficult times and that her SSgt
ordered her to remove the signs because the SSgt didn’t “like
their tone.” 20 While locked in an antagonistic relationship with
her superiors--a relationship surely visible to other Marines in
the unit--placing visual reminders at her shared workspace that
“no weapon formed against me shall prosper” could certainly
undercut good order and discipline. When considered in context,
we find that the verbiage in these signs could be interpreted as
combative and agree with the military judge that the signs
placement in the shared workspace could therefore “easily be
seen as contrary to good order and discipline.” 21 For this
reason as well, the orders to remove the signs were lawful...."
