{"id":429,"date":"2006-05-31T21:23:02","date_gmt":"2006-06-01T01:23:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/?p=428"},"modified":"2006-05-31T21:23:02","modified_gmt":"2006-06-01T01:23:02","slug":"hmm-no-responses-to-my-last-post","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/2006\/05\/31\/hmm-no-responses-to-my-last-post\/","title":{"rendered":"hmm.  no responses to my last post ;)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I hope it wasn&#8217;t the content.  Because i&#8217;m coming at you again with dark disconcerting news.  This time i&#8217;m going to focus on one issue at hand.  This is our nations idea that speaking against the government is a &#8220;bad&#8221; thing.  We have seen a growing progression toward the limitation of negative statements regarding our government as a whole, which interestingly enough has not spurned much response from our fellow citizens.  Perhaps i&#8217;m wrong, perhaps the response is there just muted by our government.  I will not judge&#8230; yet.<\/p>\n<p>Exhibit A:<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.chicagotribune.com\/news\/nationworld\/chi-0605310058may31,1,6639785.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed\">The first ruling <\/a>i disagree with issued by the new supreme court.  <\/p>\n<p>Exhibit B:<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/cgi-bin\/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;navby=case&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=04-473\">Here<\/a> is the actual opinions. <\/p>\n<p>My personal favorite is the dissenting opinions drafted by Justice Stevens.  My favorite line is this:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The notion that there is a categorical difference between speaking as a citizen and speaking in the course of one&#8217;s employment is quite wrong.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>He is responding of course to this quote:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom. See, e.g., Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion) (&#8220;[T]he government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign&#8221;). Government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employees&#8217; words and actions; without it, there would be little chance for the efficient provision of public services. Cf. Connick, supra, at 143 (&#8220;[G]overnment offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter&#8221;). Public employees, moreover, often occupy trusted positions in society. When they speak out, they can express views that contravene governmental policies or impair the proper performance of governmental functions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It expresses a notion by the assenting opinion regarding the fact that an individual can act in a sort of dualist notion, at one point the individual may act as a citizen of the state, and at another point he may act as an employee of the state that allows for a restriction to the rights granted by the consitution, i.e. freedom of speech.<\/p>\n<p>My biggest concern regarding this whole excersise is a concern for the academic world.  It is largely a part of the public government, and so one would hope they would still be afforded the rights granted previously.  <\/p>\n<p>Exhibit C:<br \/>\nWhen confronted regarding this issue:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Second, Justice Souter suggests today&#8217;s decision may have important ramifications for academic freedom, at least as a constitutional value. See post, at 12-13. There is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court&#8217;s customary employee-speech jurisprudence. We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>No real answer seems forthcoming, but worry not they have a whole set of old fart&#8217;s lifetimes to go before they run out of time for considering this idea.<\/p>\n<p>Oh woe is me, now that big brother has come home.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I hope it wasn&#8217;t the content. Because i&#8217;m coming at you again with dark disconcerting news. This time i&#8217;m going to focus on one issue at hand. This is our nations idea that speaking against the government is a &#8220;bad&#8221; thing. We have seen a growing progression toward the limitation of negative statements regarding our [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-entries"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/429\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/happypoet.com\/arglor\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}