Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickff | Hacker News Reader

It is illegal for many government employees to express many political views in writing or in public (under certain circumstances), and those laws have been in place for some time. I believe that the stated intent of those laws are to ensure public and political confidence that the bureaucracy will enact the law in a non-partisan way. Whether the laws were a good idea or not, I cannot say, but it seems like government employees should either comply with their legal obligations, campaign for the law to be changed, or quit.

edit: here is a link to the official guidance on the Hatch Act - https://osc.gov/Pages/The-Hatch-Act-Frequently-Asked-Questio...

View on HN

Well, presenting evidence for human-caused climate change is arguably not a political act, except to the extent that the current administration has defined it as such. US civil servants with sufficient tenure won't lose their jobs over that. Consider James Hansen's experience during the Reagan administration. But others, with less support, found themselves transferred to boring, dead-end positions.

Given HN's recent experiment with trying to define and block political stories, I don't see how one can draw that line in a non-viewpoint-based way.

Every administration draws the line as it likes. But some staff, I've worked with through five administrations. Sometimes, they could talk freely. Other times, it was more like Deep Throat ;)

I'd understood that the controversy here began with a difference of opinion on whether climate change was a political view or just a fact?

There also seem to be 'Trump-resistant' factions in various other agencies, notably including the intelligence community, and possibly including the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services.

people who work for the government still have the first amendment right to criticize it's functionings.

The First Amendment protections afforded to government employees are more limited than those possessed by the average citizen. The latest SCOTUS case on this (which I am aware of) is Lane v. Franks.[1]

[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lane-v-franks/

that's only because of overlapping protections for government employees

didn't realize qualified immunity extended to the government as employer.

Another important reason is so that they can't be pressured into campaigning. (Since it would be illegal for the to do so.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com