4 ms·

That's ridiculous, and could be illegal, because in changing the response, they are taking on the speech of the named employee. If that's not a first amendment

That's ridiculous, and could be illegal, because in changing the response, they are taking on the speech of the named employee. If that's not a first amendment violation, I don't know what is. Federal employees are not allowed to be involved in politics while they are employed by the federal government, I know there's exceptions and everything, but at its core this action is repugnant.

philipallstar 1y ago
> in changing the response, they are taking on the speech of the named employee Would you say that a company adding a standard footer to your outgoing emails is taking on your speech?
- riotnrrd 1y ago
  I would say the Federal Government is different from a private company.
- rolph 1y ago
  this is not about attaching a standard footer.
- smelendez 1y ago
  It depends on what the footer says. This isn't a company though, it's the government, and it's generally considered unprofessional if not illegal for federal employees to make partisan statements on the job. There's also the fact that, in my experience, out-of-office autoreplies are generally drafted by the employee while footers are often standardized by the employer. Additionally, there are strict rules on what federal civil servants can do during a shutdown that don't really apply in private industry, which means whatever official channels would exist to complain probably aren't available. I don't think furloughed employees are supposed to send official email, either, which means they can't clarify who provided this message even if someone is confused by it.
  - SpaceNoodled 1y ago
    It's illegal, as it's a violation of the Hatch Act.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      The official interpretation of the Hatch act was changed in April of this year, so it's likely not.
      - cosmicgadget 1y ago
        Wait was the statute amended or did the judiciary change the interpretation?
        fragmede 1y ago
        https://osc.gov/News/Pages/25-99-OSC-Announces-Updates-to-Hatch-Act-Enforcement-Rescinds-past-Advisory-Opinions.aspx https://osc.gov/News/Pages/25-99-OSC-Announces-Updates-to-Ha... > Today, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announces a new advisory rescinding the Hatch Act advisory opinion dated May 20, 2024, and a related advisory opinion dated October 15, 2024. The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activity of federal employees while they are on duty, in the federal workplace, or acting in their official capacity. The new Hatch Act advisory opinion (the “April 25 Advisory") supersedes the May 20, 2024, and October 15, 2024, opinions in three ways. > First, OSC will return to its traditional practice of referring Hatch Act violations by White House Commissioned officers to the President for appropriate action. > Second, OSC is pausing the referral of cases against former employees to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) until the legal question concerning jurisdiction is resolved. > Third, OSC is discarding the “year-round workplace political item prohibition" on wearing or displaying of political candidate or political party items in the workplace related to the campaigns of “current or contemporaneous political figures (CCPFs)." In practice, the blanket prohibition created too great a burden on First Amendment interests.
        1y ago
- ambicapter 1y ago
  Why are you bringing in private companies as an argument in a discussion about free speech, which only applies to government entities?
- lesuorac 1y ago
  I don't think I've ever worked anywhere that does that. What does the footer say?
- Simulacra 1y ago
  No, because that's a private company. Your first amendment right to the freedom of speech is freedom from government center ship and interference in your speech. It does not apply to private companies. Now with that said, adding a footer, I don't think would be a problem, but if you set an away message and they changed that for a political reason, then it could be said that they impersonating you to broadcast a political message. Then it might be a civil matter.
- quantified 1y ago
  Government is not a company. It's less about overriding each person's OOO message (it is about in a small way) and much more about what the message is. Just poison throughout from this admin.
briandear 1y ago
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Did congress pass a law I missed? Government communication isn’t a 1st Amendment issue. When you work for any employer, you are subject to the whims of that employer.
- JustExAWS 1y ago
  The laws are different when you work for the government. A private employee can fire you for something you said a lot easier than the government. https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-at-work https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-a...
  - bragr 1y ago
    >The laws are different when you work for the government. Which laws? Because every government job I've come across has pretty strict rules on what you can and cannot say in public, or at least they way in which you have to frame it apart from your job.
    - JustExAWS 1y ago
      I added the link in my comment in an edit before you replied to be fair https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-at-work https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-a... But from the ABA for a more reliable source. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2017/october-2017/new-aba-fact-checking-site-sets-the-legal-record-straight/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
      - JustExAWS 1y ago
        I meant I added the parent link after you replied. In other words it was on me for not providing a citation
gizmo686 1y ago
Setting aside first amendment implications; this is a brazen violation of the Hatch act on the part of whoever set the partisan reply.

philipallstar 1y ago

> in changing the response, they are taking on the speech of the named employee Would you say that a company adding a standard footer to your outgoing emails is taking on your speech?

riotnrrd 1y ago
I would say the Federal Government is different from a private company.
rolph 1y ago
this is not about attaching a standard footer.
smelendez 1y ago
It depends on what the footer says. This isn't a company though, it's the government, and it's generally considered unprofessional if not illegal for federal employees to make partisan statements on the job. There's also the fact that, in my experience, out-of-office autoreplies are generally drafted by the employee while footers are often standardized by the employer. Additionally, there are strict rules on what federal civil servants can do during a shutdown that don't really apply in private industry, which means whatever official channels would exist to complain probably aren't available. I don't think furloughed employees are supposed to send official email, either, which means they can't clarify who provided this message even if someone is confused by it.
- SpaceNoodled 1y ago
  It's illegal, as it's a violation of the Hatch Act.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    The official interpretation of the Hatch act was changed in April of this year, so it's likely not.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      Wait was the statute amended or did the judiciary change the interpretation?
      - fragmede 1y ago
        https://osc.gov/News/Pages/25-99-OSC-Announces-Updates-to-Hatch-Act-Enforcement-Rescinds-past-Advisory-Opinions.aspx https://osc.gov/News/Pages/25-99-OSC-Announces-Updates-to-Ha... > Today, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announces a new advisory rescinding the Hatch Act advisory opinion dated May 20, 2024, and a related advisory opinion dated October 15, 2024. The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activity of federal employees while they are on duty, in the federal workplace, or acting in their official capacity. The new Hatch Act advisory opinion (the “April 25 Advisory") supersedes the May 20, 2024, and October 15, 2024, opinions in three ways. > First, OSC will return to its traditional practice of referring Hatch Act violations by White House Commissioned officers to the President for appropriate action. > Second, OSC is pausing the referral of cases against former employees to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) until the legal question concerning jurisdiction is resolved. > Third, OSC is discarding the “year-round workplace political item prohibition" on wearing or displaying of political candidate or political party items in the workplace related to the campaigns of “current or contemporaneous political figures (CCPFs)." In practice, the blanket prohibition created too great a burden on First Amendment interests.
        1y ago
ambicapter 1y ago
Why are you bringing in private companies as an argument in a discussion about free speech, which only applies to government entities?
lesuorac 1y ago
I don't think I've ever worked anywhere that does that. What does the footer say?
Simulacra 1y ago
No, because that's a private company. Your first amendment right to the freedom of speech is freedom from government center ship and interference in your speech. It does not apply to private companies. Now with that said, adding a footer, I don't think would be a problem, but if you set an away message and they changed that for a political reason, then it could be said that they impersonating you to broadcast a political message. Then it might be a civil matter.
quantified 1y ago
Government is not a company. It's less about overriding each person's OOO message (it is about in a small way) and much more about what the message is. Just poison throughout from this admin.

briandear 1y ago

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Did congress pass a law I missed? Government communication isn’t a 1st Amendment issue. When you work for any employer, you are subject to the whims of that employer.

JustExAWS 1y ago
The laws are different when you work for the government. A private employee can fire you for something you said a lot easier than the government. https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-at-work https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-a...
- bragr 1y ago
  >The laws are different when you work for the government. Which laws? Because every government job I've come across has pretty strict rules on what you can and cannot say in public, or at least they way in which you have to frame it apart from your job.
  - JustExAWS 1y ago
    I added the link in my comment in an edit before you replied to be fair https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-at-work https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-a... But from the ABA for a more reliable source. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2017/october-2017/new-aba-fact-checking-site-sets-the-legal-record-straight/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
    - JustExAWS 1y ago
      I meant I added the parent link after you replied. In other words it was on me for not providing a citation

gizmo686 1y ago

Setting aside first amendment implications; this is a brazen violation of the Hatch act on the part of whoever set the partisan reply.