I wouldnt have imagined at the time that the worse part of electronic messages is that they could one day legaly be written in your name. I thought things coudnt be worse than not being allowed to speak (which was already normal at the time)
It's not clear to me that they're guaranteed a platform on their work email, but having been allowed to set a message and then having it removed and then replaced with a different one is not a good look for free speech.
Why is alignment necessary? In our system compromise is the typical alignment sought where no single view dominates the decisions or direction. With enforced alignment no compromise is more than not necessary it’s not possible. That’s the dysfunction of the present because there’s a perception that holding office entails enforcing alignment, and opposing voices not only need not be heard but are forcefully silenced. However the system we have in the US doesn’t allow for that, and explicably, it’s even more dysfunctional than normal. Sooner or later they have to stop and compromise, over throw the system, or be removed. That’s precisely how it’s designed to work.
So, you shouldn’t be silenced, your opinions should be heard, and to the extent they’re reasonable, they should be considered proportional to your ability to influence. The more to which this is prevented or ignored the more unstable the system is.
I think we can all agree on this. It would just be nice if there was consistent enthusiasm for the first amendment when it comes to actual taboo ideas. Are you quoting this when you hear about right wing extremists being canceled or jailed in Europe? In the 1970s, Jewish lawyers at the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party’s right to march in Skokie. Not out of support, but to uphold the principle of free speech for all. What happened to intellectual honesty?
I mean it depends on what we are talking about. The case you mention was about the right to peacefully assemble, and that the swastika does not count as "fighting words" and thus not grounds to say the assembly isn't allowed. In the case of Europe, they don't have the same constitution as the USA so I'm not sure how to compare that, and if those extremists are merely being silenced over swastikas or calls for the deaths of people since you didn't specify.
Plus the comparison to Europe and that specific case is especially untenable because if the specific case in Europe was in Germany, then they have a special relationship with the swastika.
> In the 1970s, Jewish lawyers at the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party’s right to march in Skokie.
Well, that doesn't mean that
a) they were right to do so then, or
b) a better understanding can't have been reached since then.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a very real thing. If you want to make free speech absolutism a religious principle within your own beliefs, go wild, but for those of us who just want to make this world the best place we can to live in, we have to consider what the consequences of different kinds of speech are.
And the consequence of being tolerant of hate speech is that the speech of those being hated diminishes. Their freedom diminishes. Their safety diminishes. Sooner or later, they are driven out of communities that permit hate speech against them.
"Free speech for all", in the sense that absolutely anyone is fully free at any time to say anything they want, and everybody remains equal in this, is a fantasy. And American jurisprudence has rejected that level of "free speech" since very early on—there are laws against libel, incitement to violence, false advertising, and other forms of speech.
It’s gone. The ACLU itself is pretty anti free speech these days and happily looks the other way when censorship on private social media platforms aligns with their ideological views. People have been writing about free speech issues at the ACLU for about a decade now:
It's the right call, but really, those notices were probably doing the administration more harm than good. One of the sweatier message campaigns we've seen in the recent history of US politics.
I mean, you'd think so, but the past dozen years have repeatedly demonstrated that there's quite a few people who don't seem to realize that this sort of thing is, in fact, bad.
Why would it be ignored? Say what you want about the executive branch trying to weasel out of things and get the Supreme Court to lift holds, but they've so far been unwilling to out and out disobey finalized court orders.
Not for the President, unfortunately. Supreme Court precedent has effectively set him as immune from prosecution, and it's not like at his age he'd serve much time anyways.
I expect a lot of his administration to spend their latter years in jail though. Siding with him has basically never paid off for anyone.
They won't ignore it. They'll comply with replacing the partisan message, and move on to dozens of other violations. It's not so much the judgments as that the courts can't keep up.
Not every failure is meaningful on its own but it would at least spiritually be a very different country today if they wasn't such a pattern of sustained opposition and losing in the courts going back 2017.
Ties those who ignore it closer to the group in power: more to lose when they lose it. Every little erosion of law adherence creates more of that cheap loyalty substitute.
Is there no federal defamation law that could apply here? I would've thought this would fall under something like that, rather than 1A. Even without 1A, you could still be defaming someone by misrepresenting that they hold a certain view, right? I know states have laws against this regardless of the constitution, but is there no such thing at the federal level?
I think the idea of the comment you replied to is that the people whose out-of-office messages these appear to be are being defamed through the appearance of being partisan, or more strongly through the appearance of violating the Hatch act.
I fundamentally don't understand the rights of government employees. They are supposedly there to execute the will of the political branch that controls them whether or not they agree with it, which is why they are given immunity from firing by each incoming administration. So how do they also have the right to personalized communication from their work email addresses (a right that no private sector employee has)? How can they have the right to exercise government authority without being democratically elected, or at least accountable for their actions to someone who is?
The US government can exert control over aspects of employee communications related to their job function.
The US government cannot require employees to express political views unrelated to their job function.
The US constitution places restrictions on the government that don’t necessarily apply to private sector employers (or that don’t apply in the same way).
Leaving aside the partisan aspect - you have to acknowledge that there is a difference between a statement that "The DOE is shutdown because X" and an email that says "I am unable to work because X". You made a statement before "organizations have entire departments intended for this" - yes, and those individuals are quotes as spokespeople, "A spokesperson for the department said xyz" not "I want to tell you xyz".
There is a huge difference, but both are compelled speech. The difference is that when it is a message in support of one political party the government is violating the Hatch Act (as they clearly are in this case), not the first amendment.
You're correct that you don't understand how those rights work.
I think you're actually struggling more with the idea that the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not on employers generally.
But the most relevant thing that you don't understand is that government employees are NOT supposed or allowed to act in partisan ways. Your suggestion seems to be that's the point of the job. In fact, that type of activity is prohibited in their official functions and can even be illegal.
But government employees obviously do not have 1A rights in their role as employees. e.g. if a government employee feels like wearing a nazi uniform to the office every day, they will be fired, even though 1A prevents the government from punishing private citizens for doing the very same. Firing the employee is not violating 1A but charging them with a crime would be.
And how do you define "partisan" here? How can your job be to implement the policies set by politicians, but not be "partisan."
You’re not actually refuting the argument of the person you’re replying to. They’re saying that when you’re employed by the government, you’re paid to do a job and you’re at the service of the agency and leaders you work for. Your rights as a private individual do not apply when you’re paid to do a certain job.
As an example, if an agency wanted to perform a marketing campaign, and you decide to do go off script as an employee, you can be fired. There is no legal right to say whatever you want in the context of the job.
Readit News
It's not clear to me that they're guaranteed a platform on their work email, but having been allowed to set a message and then having it removed and then replaced with a different one is not a good look for free speech.
So, you shouldn’t be silenced, your opinions should be heard, and to the extent they’re reasonable, they should be considered proportional to your ability to influence. The more to which this is prevented or ignored the more unstable the system is.
Or it, you know, those contrarian views? You know the ones.
(Personally, I'm a contrarian about the presence of fire in crowded theaters, and boy have I been silenced)
If your definition of free speech is "nazi should be allowed to silence thwir critics" then I dont care about your hypocrisy.
Plus the comparison to Europe and that specific case is especially untenable because if the specific case in Europe was in Germany, then they have a special relationship with the swastika.
Well, that doesn't mean that
a) they were right to do so then, or
b) a better understanding can't have been reached since then.
The Paradox of Tolerance is a very real thing. If you want to make free speech absolutism a religious principle within your own beliefs, go wild, but for those of us who just want to make this world the best place we can to live in, we have to consider what the consequences of different kinds of speech are.
And the consequence of being tolerant of hate speech is that the speech of those being hated diminishes. Their freedom diminishes. Their safety diminishes. Sooner or later, they are driven out of communities that permit hate speech against them.
"Free speech for all", in the sense that absolutely anyone is fully free at any time to say anything they want, and everybody remains equal in this, is a fantasy. And American jurisprudence has rejected that level of "free speech" since very early on—there are laws against libel, incitement to violence, false advertising, and other forms of speech.
It’s gone. The ACLU itself is pretty anti free speech these days and happily looks the other way when censorship on private social media platforms aligns with their ideological views. People have been writing about free speech issues at the ACLU for about a decade now:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/is-the-aclu...
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/we-lack-the-power-just...
I expect a lot of his administration to spend their latter years in jail though. Siding with him has basically never paid off for anyone.
Plus what is being asserted is not really a factual statement so it can't be a lie.
Politicians are allowed to say things like "my opponent believes such and such".
The US government cannot require employees to express political views unrelated to their job function.
The US constitution places restrictions on the government that don’t necessarily apply to private sector employers (or that don’t apply in the same way).
I think you're actually struggling more with the idea that the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not on employers generally.
But the most relevant thing that you don't understand is that government employees are NOT supposed or allowed to act in partisan ways. Your suggestion seems to be that's the point of the job. In fact, that type of activity is prohibited in their official functions and can even be illegal.
And how do you define "partisan" here? How can your job be to implement the policies set by politicians, but not be "partisan."
As an example, if an agency wanted to perform a marketing campaign, and you decide to do go off script as an employee, you can be fired. There is no legal right to say whatever you want in the context of the job.
I thought that's exactly what you signed up for when you become a government employee.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment