borisp wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
These are tricky issues and the balancing tests are both fact intensive and somewhat subjective.

Yes, censorship and other totalitarian ideas can be this way. I mean - it's really hard to compile a list of permissible things to say. Especially since one thing may be judged ok today - but what if we need to get it verboten tomorrow? Not an easy task. And then there are people who always want to say prohibited things, and sometimes they write them down...

BTW, could you tell me, when you hear a phrase "freedom of speech", what do you think it means?

With respect to the issue at hand, I think it means what is set out in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on public employee speech, which is what I outlined above. A public employee has a right to speak on issues of public concern without fear for his or her job. This is balanced against the disruption and effect on government operations such speech may have.

This is a liberalization of the First Amendment compared to the initial jurisprudence. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, not a totalitarian by any stretch of the imagination, took the position that the government as employer could act as any employer would, and fire an employee for what they said. The first amendment, he opined, did not require the government to give someone a job, or retain them in that job, on the public payroll.

Nevertheless the Supreme Court has, correctly, in my view, recognized that the government, even when acting in its role of employer, can be restricted by the First Amendment. Under the more recent conservative trend on the court, such 1st amendment protection has been reduced (such as in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which has severely curtailed public employee speakers in their role as whistleblowers).

As I said, based on the facts presented, I think the employee in this case may have a viable claim if he can prove it.

This word salad means nothing.

There is just one case where a government can restrict someone's speech - and it is to prohibit disclosure of some secret information, and not just any information they want to make secret, but the one that must be secret out of national security considerations

There is no constitutional exception for "effect on government operation". We don't exist to support government operations. Government exists to protect our rights.

The very idea of "effect" is ridiculous. Next thing you know you will be telling us we can't offend any government official with our criticism for it ruins the smooth operation of the government!

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
These are tricky issues and the balancing tests are both fact intensive and somewhat subjective.

Yes, censorship and other totalitarian ideas can be this way. I mean - it's really hard to compile a list of permissible things to say. Especially since one thing may be judged ok today - but what if we need to get it verboten tomorrow? Not an easy task. And then there are people who always want to say prohibited things, and sometimes they write them down...

BTW, could you tell me, when you hear a phrase "freedom of speech", what do you think it means?

With respect to the issue at hand, I think it means what is set out in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on public employee speech, which is what I outlined above. A public employee has a right to speak on issues of public concern without fear for his or her job. This is balanced against the disruption and effect on government operations such speech may have.

This is a liberalization of the First Amendment compared to the initial jurisprudence. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, not a totalitarian by any stretch of the imagination, took the position that the government as employer could act as any employer would, and fire an employee for what they said. The first amendment, he opined, did not require the government to give someone a job, or retain them in that job, on the public payroll.

Nevertheless the Supreme Court has, correctly, in my view, recognized that the government, even when acting in its role of employer, can be restricted by the First Amendment. Under the more recent conservative trend on the court, such 1st amendment protection has been reduced (such as in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which has severely curtailed public employee speakers in their role as whistleblowers).

As I said, based on the facts presented, I think the employee in this case may have a viable claim if he can prove it.

JC_Man wrote:
It's only free speech if it goes along with the Democratic and Liberal narrative, otherwise it's racist or divisive. You are not allowed to have your own thoughts or beliefs.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
These are tricky issues and the balancing tests are both fact intensive and somewhat subjective.

Yes, censorship and other totalitarian ideas can be this way. I mean - it's really hard to compile a list of permissible things to say. Especially since one thing may be judged ok today - but what if we need to get it verboten tomorrow? Not an easy task. And then there are people who always want to say prohibited things, and sometimes they write them down...

BTW, could you tell me, when you hear a phrase "freedom of speech", what do you think it means?

JPhurst wrote:
These are tricky issues and the balancing tests are both fact intensive and somewhat subjective.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
He would have a better shot at winning if he had claimed he was fired because of age discrimination. No, the first amendment doesn't protect you from anything unless your liberty is threatened. The guy has all the liberty in the world to pursue another job.

The First Amendment: quite likely the most misunderstood of all the amendments. Some surveys show that almost 70% of people don't actually understand what it protects and when it is applicable.

The first amendment only states that (among other things) Congress [the government] can not institute laws that abridge [limit] freedom of speech. But, employers are free to limit the speech of their employees as they see fit, and freedom of speech does not entail some sort of blanket immunity shielding each and every person from responsibility over what they say.

Count yourself as part of the 70% who doesn't understand the scope of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects people from GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. Here, since the IT employee was a public (government) employee, it is 100% wrong to say the government can "limit the speech of their employees as they see fit."

Your statement is only true for the private sector.

"Many of us know that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects ?free speech,? but what exactly does that mean for government (public) employees? If you are a state or federal employee, then you are protected from retaliation for exercising free speech by the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that when you exercise your right to free speech, your government employer cannot retaliate against you with negative employment action."

https://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-public-employees

Sigh... you post a link that directly refutes what you are saying or claiming. The government can most certainly fire an employee for things they say. The First Amendment protections are not a blanket protection that allows public employees to say whatever they want, whenever they want.

From the link YOU posted:
The Supreme Court is not yet ready to say that public employees are protected from retaliation for any First Amendment activity. Thus, while the government could not put someone in jail for complaining about a meager raise, the government might still be able to fire a public employee for this reason, unless the complaint was a matter of "public concern."


But, yes, thank you for proving the point from my original reply: most people just don't understand what the First Amendment means or how it applies to them or others.

drifterx wrote:
What's your point? People have been fired over politics, inter-office or otherwise, in the private sector! I've seen worse cases where actual whistle-blowers got fired so this isn't exactly ground breaking stuff.

Yvonne wrote:
".....Fulop has told our employees everything they do must represent Fulop in a positive light....."

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
He would have a better shot at winning if he had claimed he was fired because of age discrimination. No, the first amendment doesn't protect you from anything unless your liberty is threatened. The guy has all the liberty in the world to pursue another job.

The First Amendment: quite likely the most misunderstood of all the amendments. Some surveys show that almost 70% of people don't actually understand what it protects and when it is applicable.

The first amendment only states that (among other things) Congress [the government] can not institute laws that abridge [limit] freedom of speech. But, employers are free to limit the speech of their employees as they see fit, and freedom of speech does not entail some sort of blanket immunity shielding each and every person from responsibility over what they say.

Count yourself as part of the 70% who doesn't understand the scope of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects people from GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. Here, since the IT employee was a public (government) employee, it is 100% wrong to say the government can "limit the speech of their employees as they see fit."

Your statement is only true for the private sector.

"Many of us know that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects ?free speech,? but what exactly does that mean for government (public) employees? If you are a state or federal employee, then you are protected from retaliation for exercising free speech by the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that when you exercise your right to free speech, your government employer cannot retaliate against you with negative employment action."

https://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-public-employees

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
He would have a better shot at winning if he had claimed he was fired because of age discrimination. No, the first amendment doesn't protect you from anything unless your liberty is threatened. The guy has all the liberty in the world to pursue another job.

The First Amendment: quite likely the most misunderstood of all the amendments. Some surveys show that almost 70% of people don't actually understand what it protects and when it is applicable.

The first amendment only states that (among other things) Congress [the government] can not institute laws that abridge [limit] freedom of speech. But, employers are free to limit the speech of their employees as they see fit, and freedom of speech does not entail some sort of blanket immunity shielding each and every person from responsibility over what they say.

drifterx wrote:
He would have a better shot at winning if he had claimed he was fired because of age discrimination. No, the first amendment doesn't protect you from anything unless your liberty is threatened. The guy has all the liberty in the world to pursue another job.

tern wrote:
I'm an IT professional and have no idea how to set Facebook settings, nor any desire to use the thing.

Robin.