undefined | Better HN

0 pointsceejayoz2y ago0 comments

> If you're a government employee, speaking in the course of your duties, then it's not your speech, it's government speech.

This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/4-tech-industry-titan...

It'd probably also apply to the President saying "lock her up" about a private citizen. Is that unconstitutional pressure from an elected official?

> What does that even mean, for the US Government to have a right to speak without fear of action being taken against it by the US Government?

It means stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

0 comments

dragonwriter2y ago

> This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional

Well, maybe, if you ignore the Constitutional carte blanche for Congressional proceedings of the Article I Speech and Debate Clause.

ceejayozOP2y ago

If you prefer, it'd make a whole bunch of press conferences unconstitutional.

It's quite common for elected officials to criticize private citizens and businesses. To be concrete: Ted Cruz (and a bunch of others) publicly pressured the NFL over players kneeling at games, in a clear attempt to suppress First Amendment expression by said players, without any hint of consequences.

GeekyBear2y ago

> It's quite common for elected officials to criticize private citizens and businesses.

They can criticize all they like.

What they can't do is order the political speech of citizens be censored.

1 more reply

chipsa2y ago

Elected officials are not government employees. It is not, in fact, turtles all the way down. They may be paid by the government, but the government does not dictate when they get hired and fired. It's possible that someone may be both an elected official and a government employee, but that's fairly rare (something like: Congressman and member of the military reserve, in which case they're only a government employee while activated).

ceejayozOP2y ago

> Elected officials are not government employees.

The First Amendment distinction here being what, exactly? The President can chant "lock her up" but it's a violation if their FBI director does it?

chipsa2y ago

Elected officials set policies. Government employees implement those broad policies into action. You can change the policies your representative is pushing by changing the representative. I'm a little unclear on where exactly the FBI director falls (because he's appointed to his job with the advice and consent of the Senate, which makes a difference for these things, maybe). A FBI field office head chanting "locker up" in a press conference would be violation though, yes.

dragonwriter2y ago

> Elected officials are not government employees.

[citation needed]

The IRS disagrees, but obviously different legal contexts have different definitions, but I am aware of none supporting the distinction you are trying to make.

chipsa2y ago

Example: Hatch Act provides that persons below the policy-making level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen, but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns.

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court held “that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”

Obviously, speech and debate clause controls for Federal Congress members.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsceejayoz2y ago0 comments

> If you're a government employee, speaking in the course of your duties, then it's not your speech, it's government speech.

This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/4-tech-industry-titan...

It'd probably also apply to the President saying "lock her up" about a private citizen. Is that unconstitutional pressure from an elected official?

> What does that even mean, for the US Government to have a right to speak without fear of action being taken against it by the US Government?

It means stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

0 comments

dragonwriter2y ago

> This would make quite a few Congressional hearings unconstitutional

Well, maybe, if you ignore the Constitutional carte blanche for Congressional proceedings of the Article I Speech and Debate Clause.

ceejayozOP2y ago

If you prefer, it'd make a whole bunch of press conferences unconstitutional.

GeekyBear2y ago

> It's quite common for elected officials to criticize private citizens and businesses.

They can criticize all they like.

What they can't do is order the political speech of citizens be censored.

1 more reply

chipsa2y ago

ceejayozOP2y ago

> Elected officials are not government employees.

The First Amendment distinction here being what, exactly? The President can chant "lock her up" but it's a violation if their FBI director does it?

chipsa2y ago

dragonwriter2y ago

> Elected officials are not government employees.

[citation needed]

The IRS disagrees, but obviously different legal contexts have different definitions, but I am aware of none supporting the distinction you are trying to make.

chipsa2y ago

Obviously, speech and debate clause controls for Federal Congress members.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse