| ▲ | elicash a day ago |
| You're correct that you don't understand how those rights work. I think you're actually struggling more with the idea that the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not on employers generally. But the most relevant thing that you don't understand is that government employees are NOT supposed or allowed to act in partisan ways. Your suggestion seems to be that's the point of the job. In fact, that type of activity is prohibited in their official functions and can even be illegal. |
|
| ▲ | terminalshort a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| But government employees obviously do not have 1A rights in their role as employees. e.g. if a government employee feels like wearing a nazi uniform to the office every day, they will be fired, even though 1A prevents the government from punishing private citizens for doing the very same. Firing the employee is not violating 1A but charging them with a crime would be. And how do you define "partisan" here? How can your job be to implement the policies set by politicians, but not be "partisan." |
| |
|
| ▲ | SilverElfin a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You’re not actually refuting the argument of the person you’re replying to. They’re saying that when you’re employed by the government, you’re paid to do a job and you’re at the service of the agency and leaders you work for. Your rights as a private individual do not apply when you’re paid to do a certain job. As an example, if an agency wanted to perform a marketing campaign, and you decide to do go off script as an employee, you can be fired. There is no legal right to say whatever you want in the context of the job. |
| |
| ▲ | elicash a day ago | parent [-] | | This case wasn't about workers saying "whatever they want." This was about partisan speech being compelled by government, which in fact most government employees aren't even allowed to engage in on the job. They are legally required to act in a nonpartisan way. Failing to act in a nonpartisan way can result in Hatch Act violations, ethics investigations, or even criminal penalties. So yes, having the federal government compel them to engage in partisan speech is a problem. | | |
| ▲ | terminalshort a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I guess the part I don't get is how having a message in the email signature of your work email can be construed as expressing a personal opinion. As for the Hatch Act I believe that the administration is 100% in violation, but it doesn't seem like a 1A violation. | | |
| ▲ | elicash a day ago | parent [-] | | > I guess the part I don't get is how having a message in the email signature of your work email can be construed as expressing a personal opinion. If that were the entirety of your argument, I'd actually be in agreement with you. It wouldn't surprise me if this decision got overturned on those grounds. But on your second point, the current Court expressed its views on compelled speech and the First Amendment as applied to government workers in the Janus decision and this judge is merely following that precedent. It is stated very clearly in the decision. |
| |
| ▲ | SilverElfin a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hatch Act is different from the first amendment. | | |
| ▲ | elicash a day ago | parent [-] | | That is both true and irrelevant. The decision itself quotes from SCOTUS on the Hatch Act in making its point about the First Amendment violations. "[I]t is not only important that the Government and its employees in fact avoid practicing political justice, but it is also critical that they appear to the public to be avoiding it, if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent." |
|
|
|
