Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #23868
- Started
- Last post
- 33,469 Responses
- utopian2
Interior Department banned from Twitter after unflattering President Trump posts
- 1. Trump appoints a guy who prioritizes oil and gas development over public park environmental concerns.nb
- 2. Park Service comments on it, and later retweets a couple things.nb
- 3. Trump orders them to shut the fuck up until they have been properly instructed on what they are allowed to say.nb
- How's that ol' Constitution holding up, America? Anyone still care about it?nb
- It is unprofessional for an employee to use a National Park Service twitter account to share partisan opinionswhatthefunk
- Like it or not it's inappropriate to use the 'company account' to badmouth the boss. Make a parody account and go to town, but leave the work account alone!BuddhaHat
- It certainly is unprofessional. Would you say it's "professional" of the president to ban a citizen (or department) from speaking their mind?nb
- Trump didn't direct them to be more professional, by the way. He banned them from tweeting until further notice.nb
- FWIW, soon enough Trump & cronies will be rolling the construction trucks into national parks, and there won't be a Twitter account to post from. =\BuddhaHat
- @nb of course not but freedom of speech doesn't follow citizens into the workplace, not w/o consequence of course.whatthefunk
- Freedom of speech doesn't count at work?nb
- Can you point me to the part of the constitution that outlines which places freedom of speech is protected and which places it is banned?nb
- http://www.americanb…whatthefunk
- “A employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed.”whatthefunk
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, the First Amendment does not protect speech that government employees make as part of their job dutieswhatthefunk
- My point is that the action taken by the president's office is far worse than what the Park Service employee did.nb
- http://www.americanb…BuddhaHat
- Even government employees, who have First Amendment protection, face significant difficulty when challeng­ing speech-based terminations.BuddhaHat
- First, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, the First AmendmentBuddhaHat
- does not protect speech that government employees make as part of their job duties.BuddhaHat
- I found and pasted that really quick, but I'm pretty sure that covers it?BuddhaHat
- lol @wtfunk quicker on the trigger! hahahaBuddhaHat
- I looked into this in depth with the football player taking a knee during the National Anthem.whatthefunk
- While I agree with him we technically don't possess constitutional protection against dismissal. So, you can say what you want.whatthefunk
- But that first amendment protection can be used as a defense against terminationwhatthefunk
- @buddha - one needs to know the rules in order to know how to break them ;)whatthefunk
- @nb - I completely agree though it's a tricky grey areawhatthefunk
- *edit* first amendment protection CANNOT be used as a defense against terminationwhatthefunk