Sotomayor--You CAN Say That!:

Given my interest in protecting the First Amendment from overzealous anti-discrimination rules, I was heartened to discover Judge Sotomayor's dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani. As Sotomayor summarized the majority opinion:

The Court holds that the government does not violate the First Amendment when it fires a police department employee for racially inflammatory speech - where the speech consists of mailings in which the employee did not identify himself, let alone connect himself to the police department; where the speech occurred away from the office and on the employee's own time; where the employee's position involved no policymaking authority or public contact; where there is virtually no evidence of workplace disruption resulting directly from the speech; and where it ultimately required the investigatory resources of two police departments to bring the speech to the attention of the community.

I've argued that police departments should be allowed to fire beat cops who publicly engage in racist speech or behavior. But anonymous speech by an employee of the police department's Management Information Systems Division with no evidence of prejudice to the police department's reputation or functioning is a different story. Pappas's views on race relations were simply not relevant to his job qualifications, and firing him therefore violated the First Amendment.

Comments open for four hours.

A supporter of First Amendment freedoms, I am likewise pleased with Sotomayor's dissent in Pappas. However, I am curious how you (and others here) feel about her joining the panel in Doninger v. Niehoff, a student-speech case. The text of the opinion is available here.
5.26.2009 7:20pm
federale86 (mail) (www):
So, can we start firing communists and islamists who have infiltrated government?
5.26.2009 7:24pm
So, can we start firing communists and islamists who have infiltrated government?

That's the opposite of diversity.
5.26.2009 9:47pm
So, can we start firing communists and islamists who have infiltrated government?

By any chance do you have, in your hand, a list? Perhaps you're a little unsure about the numbers?
5.26.2009 9:56pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
JC: that's one of those cases where I want everyone to lose. You've got petty school officials punishing students for trivialities, and schmucky parents who bring lawsuits because their kids didn't get to run for a student government position.
5.27.2009 5:04am
Smooth, Like a Rhapsody (mail):
I am looking for the amicus brief from the Fuhrman Institute, but I can't seem to locate it.
5.27.2009 11:01am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.