Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Free Speech, Court Of Appeals: Rogers V. New York City Transit Authority
Free Speech, Court Of Appeals: Rogers V. New York City Transit Authority
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Free Speech, Court Of Appeals: People V. Tichenor
Free Speech, Court Of Appeals: People V. Tichenor
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Free Speech, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Macfarlane V. Village Of Scotia
Free Speech, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Macfarlane V. Village Of Scotia
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Free Speech, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Urbach V. Farrell
Free Speech, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Urbach V. Farrell
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Establishment Of Religion, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: Robbins V. Bright
Establishment Of Religion, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: Robbins V. Bright
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Political Association, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Kalkstein V. Dinapoli
Political Association, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Kalkstein V. Dinapoli
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Permissible Content Discrimination Under The First Amendment: The Strange Case Of The Public Employee, Lawrence Rosenthal
Permissible Content Discrimination Under The First Amendment: The Strange Case Of The Public Employee, Lawrence Rosenthal
Lawrence Rosenthal
The speech of public employees poses special problems under the First Amendment. As Justice O'Connor once explained, a rule that forbids employees who deal with the public from being rude to customers should be permissible in the public sector, even though a statute containing the very same prohibition would be considered impermissibly vague when applied to private-sector employees. Recognizing that a special rule for public employees is necessary, the Supreme Court has held that only when public employees speak on a matter of public concern does their speech qualify for constitutional protection, and even then, the employee's interest must be …