Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Public Servant Criticises Gov't On Twitter, Gets Sacked
An anonymous reader writes "An Australian public servant who criticised the government on Twitter has been sacked even though she did not reveal her name or her job to her readers. Federal Judge Warwick Neville told her Australians had no 'unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression.' Unlike Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech. The new ruling makes means public servants cannot criticize the government on social media, even privately and in their own time."
Free speech and beard
Both must be feared
The will of the few
Owns what you do
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
A Dingo ate my freedom!
That particular example is specific to the military, though; soldiers have never been considered to have the same freedoms as civilians, even in the early years of the US.
Civilian government employees do have some degree of free-speech protection. The main caveat is that any employer (including a private-sector employer) can fire employees for speech criticizing the employer, in some cases, and that is also true when the government is acting in its role as an employer. However the government is somewhat more limited than a private-sector employer in how it uses this power.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
In some kangaroo court?
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
One can only hope this is the case. Unfortunately, I think that also in Australia, there are thousands of people who will either argue that "they have to somehow pay their bills", or that "they have nothing to hide", or any other stupid argument. And otherwise, the govt. can always promise to pay 5000 $ more per year than in similar jobs elsewhere, which is no doubt enough to shut up a whole lot of people.
Also, gag orders. Just last week someone shut down their encrypted email service and was not able to talk about what happened for legal reasons. That's a blatant violation of his first amendment rights.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
How can you have a working relationship with your employer, when in your free time you are actively working against them. You can't. Sacking is the right thing to do. As she works in the communications department and seems to be from a legal background she should have known what she was getting in for, there are no excuses.
Criticising your employer doesn't mean you are working against them. If your company does something that is wrong, then stopping them from doing what's wrong is actually good for them. Obviously your boss might not see it that way.
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
You might be surprised at how many people would be willing to have their mouths sewn shut, in exchange for money and power.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'd rather live in a country where you actually hear about the abuses instead of those countries where the abuses are hidden. The fact that we actually know about the abuses in Anglo countries gives me hope.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
We'll see if this actually stands up in the High Court.
In practice, this is unworkable - how can someone be sacked for holding a political view that does not impact the exercise of their duties? that screams discrimination, it screams an unworkable scenario for the exercise of government. It stinks - and the governments policy on refugees stinks as well, it's cruel and inhumane and repugnant to right minded people, it's unaustralian, it brings shame to this country, and it's architects ought to be ashamed..
Now fire me if you dare.
Well in Government that's what whistleblowing procedures are for. You do not blog about it and expect to keep your job.
The best analogy is insider trading. When you are supposed to be supporting elected politicians, you need to keep some neutrality. If you have different political views you could undermine the government / elected officials through what you pick up behind closed doors and then expose. This isn't fair to the elected official and trust is breached.
Jason.
Are you seriously comparing a civil employee to a military officer?
If you're an officer, you're not criticizing "the administration", you're criticizing your commanders. Most people in the military understand why they shouldn't even consider getting involved in politics...if you need to understand why military shouldn't be involved in politics, I cannot help you. A history book can, however.
Please help metamoderate.
If you have different political views you could undermine the government / elected officials through what you pick up behind closed doors and then expose.
You can't possibly expect a civil servants political views to always align with those of the government unless you assume they change them every time a different political party comes into power. Would you overturn the civil service every time an election is held?
And unless you civil service is composed entirely of apolitical workers, you can't expect them all to be 'neutral' outside of the office.
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
OT: There is an advertisement up in the subway station under the Pentagon by some group called the Oath Keepers that says: "Snowden honored his oath. Honor yours; expose unconstitutional actions."
You've actually just described much better than I could the reasons why you have to be politically neutral. Civil Servants remain when the individual elected members change, therefore you must effectively close your trap and not get involved in politics, except where you are permitted such as the polling booth.
You are kind of also overlooking the point that civil servants have a unique opportunity to advise and guide the politicians. Sure it might not be appropriate for you to speak out on twitter, but you would certainly be able to use your position to influence.
Just think of the power a civil servant would have if you could influence in the office, vote in the polling booth, as well as undermine in public using information that is not in the public domain. That's far too much power.
Jason.
Of course there can be conflicts in rights, eg the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that in some cases an individuals right to fundamental justice can, for a while such as the length of a court case, override the groups right to speech as having an impartial jury is important to having a fair trial.
Courts mistake an informed jury for a partial jury. By allowing courts to manage the information a jury hears, they in fact create partial juries. The correct solution to a jury that is swayed by speech is more speech that counters the first speech. Whoever runs out of valid arguments first is the loser.
Can you imagine if we held scientists, who are also supposed to be impartial judges of evidence, to the standards of a jury? Instead of submitting papers for peer review by experts, we'd be submitting them to people who are prohibited from knowing anything about the field.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!