Read this post: This post is going to be about the second article from abajournal.

David Hudson details the discussion into public employees and the protections the First Amendment affords their free speech.A public employee means any office or employee of the federal or state government, for example police officers or elected officials (Legal Information Institute).The public employee represents their respective department and therefore are held to a higher standard of free speech.Because of the rise of social media, any and all comments whether on or off duty are now more widespread.In the earlier decades of the 21^stcentury, an employee could have a private conversation in person or on the phone and usually could not be spread as easily.This made for a freer speech.However now with the rise of Facebook and other social media services, such comments and ideas against a public sector could be spread around much quicker and then bring upon an unfavorable view of the public service the employee works for.An example Hudson points out, a fire captain in Austin Texas was suspended after posting derogatory comments about the current presidential administration at that time.These comments brought an unfavorable light to the Austin Fire Department and even the city of Austin itself (Hudson, 2017).

I believe the First Amendment does not protect online speech at the level we "Americans" feel entitled.I work for the Federal Government and anything we put on social media that brings a negative light to the Army, can and will be used against me when it comes to discipline.Hudson writes, public employees (which includes Armed Forces) should be able to vent, however, blasting it on social media with a sort of bias in the speech can create disruptions in the workplace (Hudson, 2017).These disruptions are what lawyers use to argue what type of speech was used by the public employee and whether it was protected.In general, free speech for the public sector does not apply.I have seen it firsthand that even when a Soldiers words aren't pasted to Facebook, are heard from others instead, and create disruption in the workplace than that Soldier will be delt with in the way of discipline.

I do think employees have the right to free speech in the workplace.An employee should be able to vent in some fashion to some form of outlet, whether that be another co-worker or a form of social media.However, there must be left and right limits clearly identified and posted by the employer.Of those limits, it needs to be clear that offensive and hateful speech for both private and public employees is not allowed on or off duty.These create the bias and disruptions on the workplace Hudson speaks of.Not only that, it creates distrust amongst employees and the employee employer relationship.This causes friction and a toxic work environment.

Through this article and applying my own experiences to the topic if free speech in the workplace, I have learned what I already see happening daily within the media.It is very difficult to have truly free speech, especially in the public sector.All that you do and say is a representation of that state or federal government and they do not want to look negative.You see it everyday.There are media outlets digging through years and years of old social media posts for derogatory information just to bring discredit to someone or some larger entity.How is that free speech?Why does something I say from before working for a police department for example have to be brought into question?What an individual may have said on Facebook at a young age is not indicative to who they are now as an adult.Yet we still have employees being suspended for such things.

QUESTION - state whether you agree or disagree with the bases used to justify your classmate's opinion, and explain why.

USE RESOURCES