Political Speech Protected Even If You Don't Speak

Recently the U.S. Supreme court sided with a former police officer who was demoted by his supervisors for what they believed to be unsolicited political activity off duty. In the 6-2 decision of Heffernan v. City of Paterson which was a dispute over the reach of first amendment for public employees. The main issue here was the that judges had to decide whether the First Amendment shields who aren't engaging in protected political conduct but are "perceived" by their superiors to be doing so. What caused this whole issue was that during a mayoral election in Paterson Heffernan was friends of someone who wished to unseat mayor Jose "Joey" Torres, he was spotted by a member of the mayors security detail picking up a lawn sign not for himself but for his be ridden mother and a day later was demoted to foot patrol for "overt involvement" in a political campaign.

MATT MCCLAIN/THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES

What the Supreme Court concluded was that Heffernans First Amendment right didn't rest on whether he was engaged in constitutionally protected political activity. The court decided the constitutional question while there was a big hole in the case: whether Heffernan was punished not for supporting a rival but because of under a "neutral policy prohibiting police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign. With the lack of clarity the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings. Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority stating that he would have ruled "factual impossibility" of suing over the violation of a right you never publicly exercised. It shows that everywhere now you are unable to hide from the First Amendment even when your actions do not end up relating to the First Amendment as you see here with Heffernan.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-first-amendment-motive_us_571f77ebe4b0b49df6a8f081

In Texas a new policy has take effect which was brought forward by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice(TDCJ). What this policy does is that it prohibits Texas inmates from "maintaining active social media accounts for the purposes of soliciting, updating, or engaging other, through a third party or otherwise" 

 First off one of the main issues is that the inmates do not have internet, the only way they can communicate with their families is through letters and in person visits which the TDCJ monitors. The TDCJ wishes to salience inmates who continuously voice their opinions on a verdict or sentence while others use it as an outlet to discuss life behind bars, which helps prepare them to reenter society. One large impact that this policy has is that it also effects the First Amendment rights of people who are not in prison because they are worried that any social media sites or accounts will cause the TDCJ to discipline inmates under the new policy. The actual policy itself has been touted as vague because family members have been seeking clarification on the policy itself, families are unsure if a Facebook page or Instagram picture involving an inmate will cause to TDCJ to punish them. What the TDCJ has done here is basically suppressing the voices of inmates and their supporters, by doing so they will be free from public oversight which is necessary to hold the state accountable. Here is another key situation of where a state government believes that it can do what it wants and not have to worry about the constitution. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wallis-nader/texas-wants-to-prevent-in_b_9742846.html

Supreme Court Scare for California Unions

Public employee unions are one the most powerful special interest groups in the state of California as well as the United States. That almost came to a screeching halt when they were met by a dissident group of school teachers and came within a "heartbeat" of losing that power.

The union is feeling like they dodged a bullet when Justice Antonin Scalia was unable to cast his vote which would of created a 5-4 majority in favour of the teachers' First Amendment argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers assn. With the 4-4 split of the remaining justices the court of appeals' pro union decision was left standing. The issue before the supreme court was whether compulsory funding mechanism common to all unions-those representing teachers, police, firefighters, lawyers and more, both at state and local levels are unconstitutional. Teachers state that when they pay their dues to their union they are compelled to back their workers political stance, in violation of the First Amendment's free speech clause. What the teachers wished was for the court to overturn a 1977 precedent and rule that all activities of government unions- even negotiations over salaries and benefits raise some controversial political issues, the First Amendment requires that all payments be optional. This is what makes this case is so important for public employee Unions, but this has not saved the Unions because now the public opinion is beginning to turn against them with more knowledge information being surfaced of shady business being done by union backed government officials. Now more than ever the Unions need to try and win back the public support through persuasion of free and open debate because they cannot survive continuing to conduct themselves the way that they have been in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-scheer/after-near-death-in-sup-c_b_9577684.html