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."