5 ms·
If a government employee publicly takes positions in opposition of their job duties, it's legitimate for the government to look to see if they are properly doin
by wang_li 10y ago
If a government employee publicly takes positions in opposition of their job duties, it's legitimate for the government to look to see if they are properly doing their job.
Everyone, gov. employees included, have first amendment rights. However they do not have the right to have their own agenda in their role as a government worker. That flies in the face of the core principle of the constitutional election of legislative and executive officers.
(If you want an example of twitter being inconsistent, just compare the suspension of Glenn Reynolds - instapundit - for tweeting "Run. Them. Down." in response to rioters on I277 and the lack of action on the multiple and explicit death threats the are tweeted regularly.)
- acdha 10y ago> If a government employee publicly takes positions in opposition of their job duties Civil servants swear an oath to defend the constitution, not the political interests of whoever happens to be in office currently. Anyone who doesn't want to live in a banana republic should strongly support that.
- sanderjd 10y agoAs many have noted, suspending accounts is very different than de-anonymizing them. And the government doing things is different than a private organization doing things.
- zobzu 10y agobut its against trump so its ok
- deong 10y agoAnd the government is welcome to investigate. But they can't compel a third party to help them conduct the investigation just because it would be easier on them. I doubt there's a legal basis for saying that these "alt_X" accounts are functioning in the role of a federal worker. They're obviously not advocating the official government position -- that's the whole point of them. They clearly state they aren't reflective of the views of the agency they're referencing. You'd effectively be arguing that no government employee could ever, in any capacity, express an opinion related to the function of their agency.
- jack9 10y ago> But they can't compel a third party to help them conduct the investigation just because it would be easier on them. This is a ridiculous statement. Who isn't a third party in an investigation, other than the investigated and the investigators? Bank records, third party statements, etc. This is one of those statements to save for posterity.