←back to thread

Judge says Education Dept partisan out-of-office emails violated First Amendment

(www.npr.org)
135 points toomanyrichies | 8 comments | 09 Nov 25 01:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.913s | source | bottom
Show context
terminalshort ◴[09 Nov 25 02:38 UTC] No.45862403[source]▶
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?
replies(4): >>45862414 #>>45862467 #>>45862579 #>>45862621 #
icedrop ◴[09 Nov 25 02:41 UTC] No.45862414[source]▶
Can you explain what you mean, in more direct or simpler terms?
replies(1): >>45862435 #
1. terminalshort ◴[09 Nov 25 02:45 UTC] No.45862435[source]▶
So the judge's quote from the article is "and they certainly do not sign up to be a billboard for any given administration's partisan views."

I thought that's exactly what you signed up for when you become a government employee.

replies(3): >>45862471 #>>45862520 #>>45862522 #
2. carefulfungi ◴[09 Nov 25 02:53 UTC] No.45862471[source]▶
"... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I missed the part where government service wasn't about upholding and implementing the law but was instead about support for a particular party.

replies(1): >>45863182 #
3. raddan ◴[09 Nov 25 03:01 UTC] No.45862520[source]▶
There’s a difference between being required to perform the normal functions of the government and being required to espouse a political philosophy. The Hatch Act makes it clear that you can have a political opinion, but that it occurs on your own time. So the rationale of the court is “nobody is allowed to use their office for politics” and “by putting words in government employee mouths, their right to free speech is being abridged.”

5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1): “An employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not — (1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”

There’s a lot more after that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7323

replies(1): >>45862561 #
4. singpolyma3 ◴[09 Nov 25 03:02 UTC] No.45862522[source]▶
It's actually mostly forbidden if you're a government employee. You serve the people not the politics
5. terminalshort ◴[09 Nov 25 03:09 UTC] No.45862561[source]▶
How can your job be to both implement policy set by the politicians currently in office (presumably decided by their political philosophy) without regard to your own opinions and also to not espouse a political philosophy?
replies(2): >>45863106 #>>45863263 #
6. thunderfork ◴[09 Nov 25 05:16 UTC] No.45863106{3}[source]▶
Implementing a policy and personally advocating (in speech) for a political party line are two different things
7. jalapenos ◴[09 Nov 25 05:31 UTC] No.45863182[source]▶
It was probably in the penumbras
8. anonymouskimmer ◴[09 Nov 25 05:50 UTC] No.45863263{3}[source]▶
The same way that Eisenhower served under the Democrats FDR and Truman then was elected to the presidency as a Republican?

It's a job. With particular job duties. You do those duties regardless of who's in charge. It's just that under one administration those duties are oriented to a particular larger purpose, while under another administration they are oriented to another particular larger purpose. That still doesn't change the vast majority of jobs, and for those few it does, aren't most of them political appointments already?