Don't tell anybody, but the Hatch Act is *still* on the books.
Significantly modified, for federal (and D.C.) employess _only_), in
1993.Don't take my word for it -- see
Pssst! Many, if not all, federal agency employees are *still* required to sign loyalty oaths. While they don't mention the Communist Party by name (the Supreme Court threw that out several times in the 1950's and 1960's) the employ does swear that he 'is not, and will not become' a mamber of any organization dedicated to the overhtrow of the United States Government. Many states require it as well -- Calif, Okla, Fla, Arizona, Lousiania, Georgia, just to mention a few.
Oh, lets see.
*NO* federal (or District of Columbia) employee may:-- be a candidate for public office in partisan elections -- engage in political activity while: + on duty + in a government office + wearing an official uniform + using a government vehicle -- wear partisan political buttons on duty
In addition, employees in 'select' departments/agencies/etc, may not: -- campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections -- make campaign speeches -- collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions -- distribute campaign material in partisan elections -- organize or manage political rallies or meetings -- hold office in political clubs or parties -- circulate nominating petitions -- work to register voters for one party only -- wear political buttons at work
Note that for those 'select' employes that for all but the last item, those restrictions apply to on AND _off_the_job_ activities.
The Hatch Act restrictions for State-level employees of agencies that get Federal funding are somewhat more restrictive than the first set of Federal restrictions above.
Ok, so you "don't know what you don't know".
Just one example:
In private industry, and employer can allow use of company property for non-work activities by employees -- e.g. using the copy machine to run off flyeres for a local club activity.
In a federal government agency, if an employee does that it they are comitting a *crime* -- one with _prison time_ attached to it. Whether or not they have the 'ok' of their supervisor. 18 USC 641 Incidentally, that same statute can be used to prosecute those who send unwanted commercial solication (aka "spam") e-mails to fed government mail-servers.
Then see above, regarding "Hatch Act" restrictions on political activity. If a Federal employee violates any of those rules, and the review board finds that the violation does *not* merit their getting fired, they lose a month's pay, guaranteed. Those are the _only_ two penalties allowed -- to be fired or 'fined' a month's pay.
At the State/local level, if the agency does not fire the violator, they must give back Fed Funding to the tune of _two_years_ worth of the funding for that violator's salary, or lose *all* future funding.
Doesn't meet the 'SAYING specific things is forbidden' requirement. Not a 'speech' issue.
Doesn't meet the 'SAYING specific things is forbidden' requirement. Not a 'speech' issue.
That one is, *peripherally*, a speech issue. HOWEVER, case law holds that 'pattern and manner of behavior' is _much_ more of a determining factor than the words used. "Go suck a fag", or "what time shall I knock you up?", for example, are not necessarily sexually related.
Harrassment is much more about _how_ a thing is said, than *what* is said.
Doesn't meet the 'SAYING specific things is forbidden' requirement. Not a 'speech' issue.
Whatever _that_ means. Is it "If you're going to speak to another department, this is how it shall be done?" Or '_you_ are not allow to ask this other department to do things -- the request must come from your boss?" Or what?
This is probably a restriction on _how_ things are to be said, as distinct from _what_ may be said.
Doesn't meet the 'SAYING specific things is forbidden' requirement. Not a 'speech' issue.
Final score: 0.25 out of 7
"So what?" applies. The fact that some kinds of restrictions _are_ allowed does not disprove a claim that other kinds of restrictions are
*NOT* allowed.I didn't dispute that some kinds of restrictions are allowed.
I do claim that governmental activities are prohibited from engaging in *some* kinds of restrictions.
Again, "so what?"
Some kinds of governmental restrictions are allowed. Some are *NOT*.
I can cite a Supreme Court ruling expressly invalidating a governmental unit 'dress code' item that forbade the wearing of certain items of apparel.
An organization in 'private industry' would have had *NO* problem enforcing that particular dress-code item..
Again, "so what?"
Evidence of the existance of some kinds of restrictions is neither 'evidence against", nor "disproof of", a claim that some kinds of restrictions are proscribed.
[ restoring context that the prior poster "conveniently" forgot to include ]|| 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.
Wrong.
Disproof by counter-example. If you said _exactly_ the same words to that neighbor, in a calm and reasoned tone of voice, you will *NOT* get a summons for 'disorderly conduct'.
*HOW* you said those things is what gets the summons for "disorderly CONDUCT". It is the _conduect_ that is the problem, not the language.
You're obviously ignorant of the existing 'case law' on *that* point. With the exception of a remark of that nature about the President of the United States, one cannot be charged/convicted *just* for making such a remark.
The *words* "I'm going to kill you", or "I could kill you", or similar are _not_ illegal to say. They can be said in many ways that do *not* constitute a 'threat'. Saying the words is not forbidden by any law. Making a (believable) _threat_, is a different matter, *regardless* of the words used. Saying _exactly_ the same words, in a manner and/or context that does not constitute a threat is *not* illegal
I, personally, have shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theater -- one of the 'textbook' examples of 'prohibited' speech. Strangely enough, the two cops standing less than 15 feet away from me, did *absolutely* nothing. Can you guess why?
FALSE TO FACT. No statement, _in_and_of_itself_, constitutes disorderly conduct. The "style", and "manner", in which the statement was made is what constutes the 'conduct' that is objectionable.
The 'words' do not constitute harassment. The *pattern*of*behavior* does.
Which is *UTTERLY* irrelevant to 1st Amendment rights, and restrictions on *governmental* prohibitions on speech. The _government_ does *not* prohibit your saying libelous/slanderous things. The -government- does *not* prescribe any specific penalties for those actions.
Anyway, not bad for a strawman argument.
Very nice 'selective editing' -- too bad you got caught at it.
The court record confirms that the barriers are there. Cases that have gone to the Supreme Court, and the attempted governmental prohibition on a particular form of speech has been held to be "not permissible".
Just *try* to find a case where a _private_industry_ prohibition has been held invalid. On 1st Amend. grounds.
What 'many argue' is not compelling law.
That aside, the question *is* a thorny one. A great deal depends on the 'availability' of _alternate_ forms of speech.
It is long-standing policy that regulation of 'time, place, and manneer' of speech _is_ allowable where there is a bona-fide public interest being served. Regulation of the "content" of speech reguire a "compelling" public interest, and such regulation must be drawn 'as narrowly as practical' to accomplish the stated goal.
Not very mixed, at least at the Federal level. Unless the mall operator is "acting in the role of government", for which there are an articulated set of tests, the mall *is* private property and the operator is free to restrict access as they see fit. It is possble that State law may impose different limits, on a local basis.
Which they have _ready_ access to. Newspaper ads, radio & TV commericals. But, they don't have the _money_ for that. So they think they deserve 'special treatment'. *sigh*