In article <telecom24.250.7@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> Yuppers. First Amendment means that, as a government agency, you
>> cannot monitor/filter/block/etc what students _say_ in outgoing
>> email. (It's even a seriously sticky situation in government agencies
>> with their employees.)
> 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.
Generally, true, *today*. There is a _long_ history of attempts at
such rules that have been held partially or wholly void, necessitating
re-writes.
Government-as-employer is a _very_ complex legal situation. There is a
difficult balancing act between exercise of 'rights' _as_employer_ and
infringing on the 'civil rights' of the employee.
There are very few 'employer rights' that a governmental entity cannot
exercise, *BUT*, in many cases, they must be _very_careful_ in regard
to how they go about exercising those rights, and what advance
notifications are given.
What you 'know' simply establishes that a path through the swamp has
been successfully charted. The swamp is still there.
> 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.
Says a lot about the intelligence/wisdom (or lack thereof) of shop
stewards and union activists, doesn't it? <wry grin>
> 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.
The bodies of law regarding what is allowable 'in school', and 'at
work' are _significantly_ different.
The body of law regarding what is allowable/acceptable in a government
work-place is significantly different that what is allowable/
acceptable in a private employer's workplace.
>> On the other hand, you _can_ ban individuals from using the equipment
>> _at_all_, if you have a rational reason for doing so.
> Equipment may be assigned or not assigned to individuals as the
> administration sees fit in school or in industry.
>> Silly as it seems on the face of it, restricting them from 'saying
>> anything' it not the First Amendment problem that restricting them
>> from 'saying *specific* things' is.
> 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.
Would you care to itemize the 'saying specific things' forbidden by
those rules?
> 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.
Apparently, you missed -- or didn't think it significant -- the word
"saying" in the phrase 'saying *specific* things'. Use of public
roads, or public parks, has *nothing* to do with 1st Amend rights.
That aside, Because something _is_ publicly funded, and made available
to the public, 'at large', *does* mean that there are restrictions and
limitations that the government can exercise over what 'the public'
can do on/with that 'something'.
> 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.
Which has nothing to do with 'free speech', in point of fact. The
summons is for _how_ you did things, not _what_ you said.
Regulating/restricting the _content_ of speech has very high barriers
to overcome.
Regulating/restricting the _form_ of speech faces far, _far_ lower
barriers.
> 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 spiritual 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]
Pat, you may want to re-think your position. I'm in _complete_ agreement
with your comments. :)
Robert Bonomi (bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com)