82

In this thread? I just checked i don’t see any links.

Was it in another thread?

I’d love to see there links where the government can’t punish its employees for speech. The only questionis whether he was acting as a private citizen when he made the comment.

So let’s try again

Hey @Piper id love to hear your position on this too

Let’s see this ample precedent.

83

You can begin your research with this.

from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/547/410.html

(a) Two inquiries guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. See Pickering, supra, at 568. If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on the employer’s reaction to the speech. See Connick, supra, at 147. If the answer is yes, the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. The question becomes whether the government employer had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. See Pickering, supra, at 568. This consideration reflects the importance of the relationship between the speaker’s expressions and employment. Without a significant degree of control over its employees’ words and actions, a government employer would have little chance to provide public services efficiently. Cf. Connick, supra, at 143. Thus, a government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its employer role, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect its operations. On the other hand, a citizen who works for the government is nonetheless still a citizen. The First Amendment limits a public employer’s ability to leverage the employment relationship to restrict, incidentally or intentionally, the liberties employees enjoy in their capacities as private citizens. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597. So long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary for their employers to operate efficiently and effectively. See, e.g., Connick, supra, at 147. Pp. 5-8.

1 Like
84

The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

A person does not give up their freedom of speech when they join the military or work for the government.

85

Thanks for repeating what i just said. The quesition Is whether he was acting as a private citizen.

So the below is wrong…. Glad we are on the same page

And? The government is forbidden to punish people for speech.

86

Yes they most certainly do. As employees not as private citizens. You should read the link @zantax posted. It will clear it up for you

87

Except he was acting as a private citizen, speaking on a matter of public concern.

1 Like
88

I read it twice. Maybe you should read it again.

What government position does Jill Biden hold?

Could Brandon punish any citizen for their remarks to Jill Biden?

89

That may very well be true and his suspension may be improper. That has nothing to do with two assertions being made

Biden is indeed his boss
And the government is indeed allowed to punish people for speech. Specifically its employees when they act as employees

90

Jill Bidens position is only relevant if he was being punished under a different rule

Here the only real question is whether he was acting as a private citizen. You may have missed that part. It’s important to understand these things so when you try to defend the document you profess to love you actually understand what it says and when its protections are applicable.

91

Well then we can fix our disagreement by adding one word, protected(speech).

92

Don’t forget what the general said to Jill. I think Jill’s post has since been deleted.

People said some awful things about Melania Trump. The Trump family didn’t make a federal case of them. Brandon and his brood are nuts. I don’t agree with anything they do, so that makes me bias, or racist or something I’m sure.

Speaking of double standards, I’m thinking about making a post about how proud I am to be a white and straight woman.

1 Like
93

Whether the suspension is appropriate or even deserved is obviously up for debate.

94

Not really given legal precedent.

95

Considering all of the serious things happening in our world needing the president’s attention, this is the last thing he should spend time on. I’m moving on.