> So then the argument is the anticipated testimony wrt voting rights would be detrimental to the public interest? The government, or in this case the Universi

> So then the argument is the anticipated testimony wrt voting rights would be detrimental to the public interest? The government, or in this case the University of Florida, is not supposed to be the ultimate authority of what is is the best interest of the public, the public is supposed to be the ultimate authority. The first amendment serves as protection from the government 'self dealing', looking out for their own interests and not the public's, by preventing them from stifling or limiting speech. > Public university serves the public, no? Yes and because they are public university their ability to limit their employee's speech is limited compared to a private institution.