Sorry, but I know too many government agencies that have strict rules on what their employees may say using any government equipment, and AFAIK these rules are perfectly legal and upheld. Employees have been terminated over violations and their unions were unable to do anything. Shop stewards have been fired and union activists convicted of trespassing for exceeding the boundaries of these rules. A government agency may secretly monitor employees' phone calls and computer use without any warning or notice.
I assure you the unions would've fought this stuff if they could've.
Further, agencies have rules regarding public statements, such as that external questions have to be forwarded to the designated public affairs officer.
Just because something is publicly funded does not change every rule or policy.
I think what you folks are confusing is the right of students and goverment employees to freely speak outside of school or work. That is protected speech. But inside the building, especially on government owned facilities -- computers, phones, bulletin boards*, etc., you do not have that protection.
Equipment may be assigned or not assigned to individuals as the administration sees fit in school or in industry.
Sorry, but rules do exist prohibiting "specific things" in government and in schools.
My local library requires a signature observing their rules on using their public computers.
Just because someone is publicly funded does not mean the individual using it has unlimited rights over it. When you drive a car on a public road or visit a public park you must obey the law on usage.
There is no such thing as unlimited free speech. Try screaming a tirade at your neighbor and you'll get a summons for disorderly conduct. There are many examples.
Indeed, lately many people have objected toward the expression of religion in public schools and some courts have upheld restrictions on that. For example, a school choir was forbidden by the courts to sing black spirtual gospel songs even as an all-volunteer after school activity.
As Pat said, administrative convenience is important or schools and government would grind to a halt mired in bureaucracy. Yes, different states and municipalities do vary, but this is the way it is.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is also important to remember the difference between someone who is _governed by the government_ versus someone who is _employed by the government_ (except as the government employee happens to coincidentally also be a citizen). Things like the First Amendment theoretically serve as protection for those who are being governed. While it is grossly inconvenient for most of us to choose some other governor, on the other hand we have no automatic right to _employment_ by the government. Because of the inconvenience or impossibility for us to change governors, we therefore get the protection of things like the Bill of Right, which do not have to be given to a 'mere' employee, of the government or otherwise. And administrative convenience is given much weight in the courts. The goverment says 'it is more convenient for us to have person X do our speaking for us, and for persons Y and Z to keep quiet.' And the courts have occassionally ruled that this is _not_ a violation of persons Y and Z 'free speech rights'. Certainly any person being governed can speak _about_ the government, but they cannot speak _for_ the government nor mislead any reasonable person to think that is what they are doing. PAT]