←back to thread

135 points toomanyrichies | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
terminalshort ◴[] 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 #
1. FireBeyond ◴[] No.45862579[source]
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".
replies(1): >>45862642 #
2. terminalshort ◴[] No.45862642[source]
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.