15 ms·

“I’m not trying to tread upon your First Amendment rights,” she said. “All I’m saying is: Couldn’t you have run those First Amendment rights past the legal depa

by rosser 13y ago

“I’m not trying to tread upon your First Amendment rights,” she said. “All I’m saying is: Couldn’t you have run those First Amendment rights past the legal department first?” Welcome to modern America.

MBCook 13y ago
That was the most Orwellian sentence I've read in years.
- mbreese 13y ago
  You have a First Amendment right to speech. You don't have a right to a government job. It's hardly Orwellian. If you self-identify as a government employee, then it is reasonable to assume that someone might take what you say as government policy. Had he not said he was a TSA employee first, there would have been no issue at all.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    But if someone first says they are a government employee and then immediately follows that disclosure with "That being said, all of what I'm about to say represents my opinions and my observations and in no way should be interpreted as the official position or policy of the agency that I work for", it should all be kosher and protected under free speech, no?
    - hueving 13y ago
      Free speech does not guarantee employment.
      - pyre 13y ago
        If free speech costs you your job, is it really "free?" /snark ;-)
        hueving 13y ago
        Yes. The point is that you can do it as much as you want without restriction from anyone. Whether or not that restricts your employment is irrelevant to the first amendment.
        watwut 13y ago
        Of course not. Unless you live in economic boom or are rich. If government employee can not voice his opinions on politics without fear of being fired, his free speech rights are pure theory. Theoretically he has it, practically he does not dare to use them. It just give the government ability to yell "we guarantee freedom of speech" without really giving it.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    > You have a First Amendment right to speech. You don't have a right to a government job. It's hardly Orwellian. It's not "Orwellian" (the term doesn't make sense here), however what would you say if the TSA fired someone because he was a muslim, for example. I doubt the following: ""You have a First Amendment right to follow any or no religion. You don't have a right to a government job"" > If you self-identify as a government employee, then it is reasonable to assume that someone might take what you say as government policy. No, that's ridiculous. If someone says, "I work at the TSA, and the official policy is X", then perhaps it's "reasonable". Also, had he not identified himself as a TSA employee, none of what he said would make any sense: he was describing his experiences as a TSA employee.
    - jdminhbg 13y ago
      > "You have a First Amendment right to follow any or no religion. You don't have a right to a government job" Actually, that's built directly into the constitution, so the First Amendment doesn't enter into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
  - lsc 13y ago
    >If you self-identify as a government employee, then it is reasonable to assume that someone might take what you say as government policy I disagree. Especially when you are at the bottom of the chain of command. Would you expect a Starbucks barista, when speaking in an off-hours context, to speak for Starbucks? "I work at starbucks, but I don't think their coffee is particularly good, and my boss is an asshole." No. That's clearly the private opinion and gripes of a grunt. Now, if said barista said that on national TV, sure, they'd get fired. But nobody would be mislead into thinking that the Starbucks official message was "our coffee is bad and our supervisors are assholes" The expectation that a grunt will stay 'on message' on personal time is... pretty goddamn silly, if you ask me. I mean, sure, if a grunt goes counter-message at a company that demands slavish obedience, you are going to get fired. Hell, if you go off-message in a public enough way, and embarrass your bosses enough, especially if you reveal real weaknesses in the system you are a part of, as this person did, you are going to get fired about anywhere. I'm not making moral judgments about that; it's just the way it is. But, going "off message" on your personal time and embarrassing your bosses, while it might get you fired, is not in any way misleading to the public. Especially when you are just a grunt.
    - mbreese 13y ago
      But the main point is that the government didn't force him into silence. There was no First Amendment issue here. It was an employee/employer issue, not a citizen vs gov't issue.
      - lsc 13y ago
        I don't disagree, as written... though the guy did seem to fear being put on lists and harassed. To the extent that you think that fear is justified, this would be a first amendment issue. But as written, it doesn't sound like there has been retaliation. I was just taking issue with this idea that a reasonable person would think that a grunt speaking off-hours was speaking for the corporation or government that employs them. (I also have pretty strong feelings that complaining about your boss to people who aren't your boss is a reasonable sort of thing to do... and maybe even a fundamental human need. But that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.)
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    >>You have a First Amendment right to speech. You don't have a right to a government job. It's hardly Orwellian. That's not how it works. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want without fear of being prosecuted by the government. And if firing the employee is not prosecuting them, what is?
    - voxic11 13y ago
      So what do you think the solution should be. Can government employees pretend to represent the government when they haven't actually been authorized to?
      - enraged_camel 13y ago
        No one is "pretending to represent the government." He simply said he works for the TSA. As an employee at the lowest level, the last thing he is doing is representing the organization's policy or philosophy.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      if firing the employee is not prosecuting them, what is? Well, how about something like: pros·e·cute (verb) law : to hold a trial against a person who is accused of a crime to see if that person is guilty -- Merriam-Webster
      - enraged_camel 13y ago
        I was using the term "prosecute" figuratively. But thank you for your pedantry. Sometimes I forget I'm on HN and comments like yours remind me again.
        sliverstorm 13y ago
        It's hardly pedantry when it comes to legal documents... The first amendment does not protect against figurative prosecution, at least to my knowledge, so your premise is off. I realize you probably feel the actual text of the first amendment is needless pedantry, but what it actually says is congress shall pass no law...
  - Intermernet 13y ago
    Serious question, looking for actual precedents: If you become a government employee, do you sacrifice any constitutional rights? Can there be a clause or contract in any situation that removes your rights as a citizen, or do you cease to be a citizen when employed by the US government?
    - alistairSH 13y ago
      Maybe. Members of the US military generally enjoy the same rights and protections as civilians, but there are limits on their speech and they are subject to different laws/regulations (UCMJ). Military officers in the US are barred from speaking contemptuous words against the President and VP. (article 88 UCMJ). There is a parallel article that applies to enlisted members. Calling the Pres a "fascist pig" is a no-no. Army regulation 600-20 limits members ability to campaign on behalf of candidates for public office and partisan political causes. I'm not aware of anything like this that applies to civilian government employees.
- maxcan 13y ago
  guess you don't read much
- ptbello 13y ago
  It cites a "legal department", which is probably enough to make it pretty Kafkian as well
  - MBCook 13y ago
    You're right, kafkaesque may fit better.
baddox 13y ago
It's hardly even a modern phenomenon.
anigbrowl 13y ago
As usual, the issue is quite a bit more complex than presented here. In modern America, government employees' free-speech rights are broader than they used to be, not narrower. The underlying principle here is that when you identify yourself as a government employee, you are in some sense speaking on behalf of the government, and as your employer the government has an interest in regulating the speech of its officers, not least to ensure an accurate reflection of its legal position. The author would [edit: probably - I haven't checked] have been perfectly at liberty to express the same viewpoint without self-identifying as a TSA official. A century ago this would have been an open-and-shut case...in favor of the government. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publice...
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Right, this is in the same bucket as the disclaimers on TV, e.g. the following in no way represents the viewpoints of this station. You as a person have more free speech than you as a representative of your employer.
  - rosser 13y ago
    But he's not acting as a representative of the TSA. He's not speaking for them; he's speaking for himself — for all of us, really — as someone who has seen their practices, many of them controversial, from an insider's perspective. That's an invaluable (and otherwise largely unavailable, or at best, irredeemably subject to spin) contribution to the dialogue we, as a society, should be having about the TSA's form and function. Muzzling him a priori because he happens to have that perspective does disservice to everyone, including the TSA.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      Sure, but nobody's saying that he shouldn't critique the agency as an ex-employee. That's totally legit.
- ama729 13y ago
jff 13y ago
As another poster pointed out, it's different when you work for the government. If you have a clearance, you need to be careful about reading the news at work lest you open one of Snowden's classified slides on an unclassified workstation.
tn13 13y ago
She clearly has a point there. When a person identifies himself as TSA employee he is using TSA brand to say something that is his personal opinion. I dont think TSA can prevent him expressing his own opinion, they have all the right to prevent him from using the word TSA whenever he speaks.
- seanhandley 13y ago
  You understand a person's message from all of the words they use, not just individual words. And if you think it's acceptable to prevent someone from using an individua word, you don't really understand why we have the concept of "free speech". It's clear and in context that his account is reflective of his experience and his values. Asking him not to say "TSA" would nullify the very reason for him wishing to speak out and give rise to either a toothless account or one which obviously implicated the TSA because nobody else handles airport security in the US.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  I dont think TSA can prevent him expressing his own opinion, they have all the right to prevent him from using the word TSA whenever he speaks. So he can speak, just as long as he doesn't provide any verifiable credentials that might actually make him credible? There is a difference between speaking for the TSA, or any other employer, and merely speaking personally as someone with personal experience of the TSA, or any other employer. It's reasonable to prohibit anyone from falsely claiming to represent someone else when expressing a personal view. As a general rule, I don't think it's reasonable to prevent them from making factually accurate claims about employment that support their own authenticity when speaking personally. There probably needs to be an exception to that if there really is a genuine reason to avoid identifying an individual as part of a certain organisation for security reasons. However, given the tendency of governments to exaggerate "national security" and similar arguments, it would have to be a pretty compelling case and I would suggest that employees should have to be notified of it in advance so it could be properly challenged. In any case, it's hard to see how any of this would apply to a typical front-line TSA employee.
  - pdonis 13y ago
benched 13y ago
And how eager are those responding to this comment to use their analytic understanding of the world to apologize for and rationalize the position of government or other heavyweight institutions? Cookies all around for being so smart - while you give away your power to institutions that don't give one fuck about you. All I can imagine are a line of poindexters pushing their glasses up on their nose, saying, "Well, actually, an informed reading of the constitution reveals that you are a peon, which is actually as it should be..."
smsm42 13y ago
At least in US they are still scared of the First Amendment. In UK, for example, they just say "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."

by rosser 13y ago

MBCook 13y ago

That was the most Orwellian sentence I've read in years.

mbreese 13y ago
You have a First Amendment right to speech. You don't have a right to a government job. It's hardly Orwellian. If you self-identify as a government employee, then it is reasonable to assume that someone might take what you say as government policy. Had he not said he was a TSA employee first, there would have been no issue at all.
- malandrew 13y ago
  But if someone first says they are a government employee and then immediately follows that disclosure with "That being said, all of what I'm about to say represents my opinions and my observations and in no way should be interpreted as the official position or policy of the agency that I work for", it should all be kosher and protected under free speech, no?
  - hueving 13y ago
    Free speech does not guarantee employment.
    - pyre 13y ago
      If free speech costs you your job, is it really "free?" /snark ;-)
      - hueving 13y ago
        Yes. The point is that you can do it as much as you want without restriction from anyone. Whether or not that restricts your employment is irrelevant to the first amendment.
      - watwut 13y ago
        Of course not. Unless you live in economic boom or are rich. If government employee can not voice his opinions on politics without fear of being fired, his free speech rights are pure theory. Theoretically he has it, practically he does not dare to use them. It just give the government ability to yell "we guarantee freedom of speech" without really giving it.
- argumentum 13y ago
  > You have a First Amendment right to speech. You don't have a right to a government job. It's hardly Orwellian. It's not "Orwellian" (the term doesn't make sense here), however what would you say if the TSA fired someone because he was a muslim, for example. I doubt the following: ""You have a First Amendment right to follow any or no religion. You don't have a right to a government job"" > If you self-identify as a government employee, then it is reasonable to assume that someone might take what you say as government policy. No, that's ridiculous. If someone says, "I work at the TSA, and the official policy is X", then perhaps it's "reasonable". Also, had he not identified himself as a TSA employee, none of what he said would make any sense: he was describing his experiences as a TSA employee.
  - jdminhbg 13y ago
    > "You have a First Amendment right to follow any or no religion. You don't have a right to a government job" Actually, that's built directly into the constitution, so the First Amendment doesn't enter into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
- lsc 13y ago
  >If you self-identify as a government employee, then it is reasonable to assume that someone might take what you say as government policy I disagree. Especially when you are at the bottom of the chain of command. Would you expect a Starbucks barista, when speaking in an off-hours context, to speak for Starbucks? "I work at starbucks, but I don't think their coffee is particularly good, and my boss is an asshole." No. That's clearly the private opinion and gripes of a grunt. Now, if said barista said that on national TV, sure, they'd get fired. But nobody would be mislead into thinking that the Starbucks official message was "our coffee is bad and our supervisors are assholes" The expectation that a grunt will stay 'on message' on personal time is... pretty goddamn silly, if you ask me. I mean, sure, if a grunt goes counter-message at a company that demands slavish obedience, you are going to get fired. Hell, if you go off-message in a public enough way, and embarrass your bosses enough, especially if you reveal real weaknesses in the system you are a part of, as this person did, you are going to get fired about anywhere. I'm not making moral judgments about that; it's just the way it is. But, going "off message" on your personal time and embarrassing your bosses, while it might get you fired, is not in any way misleading to the public. Especially when you are just a grunt.
  - mbreese 13y ago
    But the main point is that the government didn't force him into silence. There was no First Amendment issue here. It was an employee/employer issue, not a citizen vs gov't issue.
    - lsc 13y ago
      I don't disagree, as written... though the guy did seem to fear being put on lists and harassed. To the extent that you think that fear is justified, this would be a first amendment issue. But as written, it doesn't sound like there has been retaliation. I was just taking issue with this idea that a reasonable person would think that a grunt speaking off-hours was speaking for the corporation or government that employs them. (I also have pretty strong feelings that complaining about your boss to people who aren't your boss is a reasonable sort of thing to do... and maybe even a fundamental human need. But that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.)
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>You have a First Amendment right to speech. You don't have a right to a government job. It's hardly Orwellian. That's not how it works. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want without fear of being prosecuted by the government. And if firing the employee is not prosecuting them, what is?
  - voxic11 13y ago
    So what do you think the solution should be. Can government employees pretend to represent the government when they haven't actually been authorized to?
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      No one is "pretending to represent the government." He simply said he works for the TSA. As an employee at the lowest level, the last thing he is doing is representing the organization's policy or philosophy.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    if firing the employee is not prosecuting them, what is? Well, how about something like: pros·e·cute (verb) law : to hold a trial against a person who is accused of a crime to see if that person is guilty -- Merriam-Webster
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      I was using the term "prosecute" figuratively. But thank you for your pedantry. Sometimes I forget I'm on HN and comments like yours remind me again.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        It's hardly pedantry when it comes to legal documents... The first amendment does not protect against figurative prosecution, at least to my knowledge, so your premise is off. I realize you probably feel the actual text of the first amendment is needless pedantry, but what it actually says is congress shall pass no law...
- Intermernet 13y ago
  Serious question, looking for actual precedents: If you become a government employee, do you sacrifice any constitutional rights? Can there be a clause or contract in any situation that removes your rights as a citizen, or do you cease to be a citizen when employed by the US government?
  - alistairSH 13y ago
    Maybe. Members of the US military generally enjoy the same rights and protections as civilians, but there are limits on their speech and they are subject to different laws/regulations (UCMJ). Military officers in the US are barred from speaking contemptuous words against the President and VP. (article 88 UCMJ). There is a parallel article that applies to enlisted members. Calling the Pres a "fascist pig" is a no-no. Army regulation 600-20 limits members ability to campaign on behalf of candidates for public office and partisan political causes. I'm not aware of anything like this that applies to civilian government employees.
maxcan 13y ago
guess you don't read much
ptbello 13y ago
It cites a "legal department", which is probably enough to make it pretty Kafkian as well
- MBCook 13y ago
  You're right, kafkaesque may fit better.

baddox 13y ago

It's hardly even a modern phenomenon.

anigbrowl 13y ago

As usual, the issue is quite a bit more complex than presented here. In modern America, government employees' free-speech rights are broader than they used to be, not narrower. The underlying principle here is that when you identify yourself as a government employee, you are in some sense speaking on behalf of the government, and as your employer the government has an interest in regulating the speech of its officers, not least to ensure an accurate reflection of its legal position. The author would [edit: probably - I haven't checked] have been perfectly at liberty to express the same viewpoint without self-identifying as a TSA official. A century ago this would have been an open-and-shut case...in favor of the government. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publice...

sliverstorm 13y ago
Right, this is in the same bucket as the disclaimers on TV, e.g. the following in no way represents the viewpoints of this station. You as a person have more free speech than you as a representative of your employer.
- rosser 13y ago
  But he's not acting as a representative of the TSA. He's not speaking for them; he's speaking for himself — for all of us, really — as someone who has seen their practices, many of them controversial, from an insider's perspective. That's an invaluable (and otherwise largely unavailable, or at best, irredeemably subject to spin) contribution to the dialogue we, as a society, should be having about the TSA's form and function. Muzzling him a priori because he happens to have that perspective does disservice to everyone, including the TSA.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Sure, but nobody's saying that he shouldn't critique the agency as an ex-employee. That's totally legit.
ama729 13y ago

jff 13y ago

As another poster pointed out, it's different when you work for the government. If you have a clearance, you need to be careful about reading the news at work lest you open one of Snowden's classified slides on an unclassified workstation.

tn13 13y ago

She clearly has a point there. When a person identifies himself as TSA employee he is using TSA brand to say something that is his personal opinion. I dont think TSA can prevent him expressing his own opinion, they have all the right to prevent him from using the word TSA whenever he speaks.

seanhandley 13y ago
You understand a person's message from all of the words they use, not just individual words. And if you think it's acceptable to prevent someone from using an individua word, you don't really understand why we have the concept of "free speech". It's clear and in context that his account is reflective of his experience and his values. Asking him not to say "TSA" would nullify the very reason for him wishing to speak out and give rise to either a toothless account or one which obviously implicated the TSA because nobody else handles airport security in the US.
Silhouette 13y ago
I dont think TSA can prevent him expressing his own opinion, they have all the right to prevent him from using the word TSA whenever he speaks. So he can speak, just as long as he doesn't provide any verifiable credentials that might actually make him credible? There is a difference between speaking for the TSA, or any other employer, and merely speaking personally as someone with personal experience of the TSA, or any other employer. It's reasonable to prohibit anyone from falsely claiming to represent someone else when expressing a personal view. As a general rule, I don't think it's reasonable to prevent them from making factually accurate claims about employment that support their own authenticity when speaking personally. There probably needs to be an exception to that if there really is a genuine reason to avoid identifying an individual as part of a certain organisation for security reasons. However, given the tendency of governments to exaggerate "national security" and similar arguments, it would have to be a pretty compelling case and I would suggest that employees should have to be notified of it in advance so it could be properly challenged. In any case, it's hard to see how any of this would apply to a typical front-line TSA employee.
- pdonis 13y ago

benched 13y ago

And how eager are those responding to this comment to use their analytic understanding of the world to apologize for and rationalize the position of government or other heavyweight institutions? Cookies all around for being so smart - while you give away your power to institutions that don't give one fuck about you. All I can imagine are a line of poindexters pushing their glasses up on their nose, saying, "Well, actually, an informed reading of the constitution reveals that you are a peon, which is actually as it should be..."

smsm42 13y ago

At least in US they are still scared of the First Amendment. In UK, for example, they just say "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."