5 ms·

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the pre

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Did congress pass a law I missed? Government communication isn’t a 1st Amendment issue. When you work for any employer, you are subject to the whims of that employer.

JustExAWS 1y ago
The laws are different when you work for the government. A private employee can fire you for something you said a lot easier than the government. https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-at-work https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-a...
- bragr 1y ago
  >The laws are different when you work for the government. Which laws? Because every government job I've come across has pretty strict rules on what you can and cannot say in public, or at least they way in which you have to frame it apart from your job.
  - JustExAWS 1y ago
    I added the link in my comment in an edit before you replied to be fair https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-at-work https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-a... But from the ABA for a more reliable source. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2017/october-2017/new-aba-fact-checking-site-sets-the-legal-record-straight/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
    - JustExAWS 1y ago
      I meant I added the parent link after you replied. In other words it was on me for not providing a citation
  - Simulacra 1y ago
    I think there's two parts of that question. The first is that the law is the hatch act, federal employees may not engage in political activities. But the second thing is, the government is assuming your identity to change your speech and broadcast that speech as if you said it. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that would squarely follow government action to abridge your speech.
rolph 1y ago
actually, governments are severly limited in compelling or interfering with political speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act
- rufus_foreman 1y ago
  Governments are not limited by the Hatch Act, civil service employees are. And the limitations are mainly around elections, so for example under the Hatch Act a civil service employee may not "use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election", may not "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person", may not "run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office", and may not "knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity" of someone who the civil service employee is interacting with.
  - rolph 1y ago
    The Hatch Act of 1939, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law that prohibits "civil service employees in the executive branch" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government) the only copout is if it is president or vice president doing it, or someone outside the executive branch.
quantified 1y ago
This isn't a 1st Amendment issue.

JustExAWS 1y ago

The laws are different when you work for the government. A private employee can fire you for something you said a lot easier than the government. https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-at-work https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-a...

bragr 1y ago
>The laws are different when you work for the government. Which laws? Because every government job I've come across has pretty strict rules on what you can and cannot say in public, or at least they way in which you have to frame it apart from your job.
- JustExAWS 1y ago
  I added the link in my comment in an edit before you replied to be fair https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-at-work https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/free-speech-a... But from the ABA for a more reliable source. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2017/october-2017/new-aba-fact-checking-site-sets-the-legal-record-straight/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/yourab...
  - JustExAWS 1y ago
    I meant I added the parent link after you replied. In other words it was on me for not providing a citation
- Simulacra 1y ago
  I think there's two parts of that question. The first is that the law is the hatch act, federal employees may not engage in political activities. But the second thing is, the government is assuming your identity to change your speech and broadcast that speech as if you said it. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that would squarely follow government action to abridge your speech.

rolph 1y ago

actually, governments are severly limited in compelling or interfering with political speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act

rufus_foreman 1y ago
Governments are not limited by the Hatch Act, civil service employees are. And the limitations are mainly around elections, so for example under the Hatch Act a civil service employee may not "use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election", may not "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person", may not "run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office", and may not "knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity" of someone who the civil service employee is interacting with.
- rolph 1y ago
  The Hatch Act of 1939, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law that prohibits "civil service employees in the executive branch" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government) the only copout is if it is president or vice president doing it, or someone outside the executive branch.

quantified 1y ago

This isn't a 1st Amendment issue.