7 ms·

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, t

by 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.

by mbreese 13y ago

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.