Budget concerns led a city fire department to eliminate its dive team used for water rescues. Two drownings occurred shortly after the dive team was disbanded. A firefighter who had been a member of the dive team spoke for eight minutes during the public comment segment of a regular city council meeting. The firefighter was off duty and not in uniform when he made his comments. The firefighter criticized the city’s decision to cut funding for the dive team, as well as for the training of other safety personnel and the ambulance fleet. He then went on to make much more pointed remarks regarding the drownings:

“Now a seven year old kid is dead, that last year would have been found in about twenty minutes by our dive team. It is my personal opinion this Council, this administration is partly responsible for condemning that child to death. I was in charge of the first responding vehicle at the drowning. That child never had a chance. I knew I was watching a seven year old boy being condemned to death because we had no dive team. We could not go get this kid. Let me make something clear. The child was on the bottom. Divers have to go and get him. That’s my personal opinion. You don’t care. That’s why I am speaking today. I am here for the safety of the people here. The citizens need to know that their safety is jeopardized by the cuts in the manpower and the funding for the safety forces. In closing, what price did you put on a child’s life? When you go home tonight I hope you tell your kids and your spouse that you did a good job. A little boy had to die but you guys saved some money. Is there going to be a third one before you guys wake up?”

Shortly thereafter, the firefighter was suspended without pay. The city said that his statements at the council meeting “Constituted insubordination, malfeasance, misfeasance, dishonesty, failure of good behavior, and conduct unbecoming of an officer.” The fire fighter sued, claiming that his First Amendment speech rights had been violated What should the court decide? Why?