NYPD Disrespect Continues, De Blasio Heckled And Booed At Cadet Graduation (VIDEO)

[onenote]

53. Not saying almost anything you say I'm saying

First, this isn't about threats. Its about booing and heckling and turning one's back on someone. Not threats.If someone theatens someone with violence, that's not commenting on a matter of public concerns and its not protected. But blaming your boss for murder (figuratively, not literally) isn't a threat and its protected speech.

Let's pause a moment on that concept, which you and others seem not to grasp: the First Amendment protects against "state" (i.e., governmental) action directed against a speaker to censor or punish speech.

It doesn't protect against private action. That's why the courts have been clear -- and I've been clear -- that public employees ARE treated differently than everyone else in the sense that a private employee can be censored or punished for his or her speech by his or her private employer. The state can't punish that private employee, however. Which is why the state, when it is an employer, can't punish or censor its employees: Otherwise, someone who works for the government would be required to subject themselves to state-mandated censorship that no private person can be subjected to.

So are subject to different treatment than "everyone else"? If by everyone else you mean people not employed by the state, the answer is yes. If you mean other people empoyed by the state, such as teachers, and agency staff, etc.: no, they're not treated differently. THey're treated the same, meaning that just as the court has protected school employees from state-imposed punishment when they criticized the elected members of the school board, so too the courts will protect the police when they criticize the elected mayor.

No deBlasio isn't responsible fpr the bloodshed that occurred as result of a lunatic with a gun. But if someone wants to be of the opinion that he was, that opinion is protected speech. The Supreme Court has held that even when a public employee levels a factually inaccurate criticism against a public official, the employee's speech is protected unless it meets the almost unattainable bar of being knowlingly false. And since the statements about deBlasio aren't literal, but hyperbolic and figurative, they can't be shown to be knowingly false - like many criticisms, they are a mixture of fact and opinion.

What concerns me the most is that the authors and proponents of First Amendment protection for public employees are the progressive justices on the court. Justice Marshall wrote the majority opinion in the leading case. Justice Douglas concurred, indicating he would have provided even greater protection than the majority. In 2006, the Court issued a heavily criticized 5-4 decision that took a unexpectedly narrow view of the scope of protections afforded a public employee. The majority: Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy. The dissenters: Ginsburg, Stevens Souter and Breyer.

Just last term, however, the court seemed to back away somewhat from its 2006 decision and reaffirmed the importance of protecting the free speech rights of public employees.

Maybe that's not the Constitution you want. Maybe you think that if the government can punish those who work for it for expressing themselves critically regarding elected officials, that it will only use that power against those with whom you disagree. I, on the other hand, am much more certain that if the government can silence its employees, it will come back to bite us in the ass.

This isn't that hard. The case law is out there to be read.