Decatur Dem says:

I work at the Atlanta VAMC, and regularly write LTEs to the Atlanta paper and the NY Times. I sign my name, and anyone can easily make the connection between me and the letters.

What I don't feel it necessary to do is to identify myself as a VA employee. I don't want any VA administrators to be confronted by right-wing zealots demanding my head on a platter. I'm not representing the VA, so what is the relevance of where I work? 

Surely, if any federal employee who's not a political employee wants to speak his or her mind, by all means s/he should do so. But if you name your place of employment, I'd suggest a moment's consideration whether it's pertinent to the subject.

Good discussion of this episode (especially if you like a legal POV) at The Volokh Conspiracy. 

I'm a little mixed on this. One key point is that members of various licensed professions, including nursing, public accounting, law, medicine, etc., may have a positive duty to speak out on what they feel are ethical violations. I don't see this particular speech fitting into this context.

Sedition is an absurd claim, but I'd want to get a legal opinion if criticism of an elected official by a civil servant, without identifying government employment, could run afoul of the Hatch Act. I don't think it does, but if there's anyone out there more familiar with Hatch Act precedent, that might be very relevant

This is really disturbing. I think all of this spying (NSA thing) and this incident have the broader effect of quelling speech in general but specifically criticizm of this administration. One of my best friends is an attorney practicing refugee law and working on her doctorate at Oxford in England. The other night we were on the phone and I tried to discuss a current event topic of the day, the Muslim Cartoon fiasco. She told me we should stop discussing it immediately because she did not want to "get in trouble". Wow, that blew me away. It made me want to scream and cry all at the same time. She is a law abinding citizen and a person of great intellect who should not be afraid to enter a private conversation about current events without fear of U.S. government reprisal.

We must put an end to spying on law abiding U.S. citizens. This is the beginning of the end of our freedoms. So many have died for these freedoms, it is our responsibility to make sure they have not died in vain.

MsAnnaNOLA

New Orleans, Louisiana

Out of curiosity, I did some reading on the Hatch Act.  There's more than I ever wanted to know available through the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm#agencies) --complete with PowerPoint! 

As I suspected, the Hatch Act refers primarily to elections and partisan political activity.  There are different levels of restrictions for different groups of federal employees, but ALL of them are allowed to express opinions about candidates and issues IF they are not on duty at the time and do not use goverment property while doing so.  (Actually, there are some who can do so on duty, in uniform, and on government property, but that is a fairly select group.)

A lawyer might be able to give a better reading of this, but my reaction is that the lady, while advocating a "throw the bums out" course of action, wasn't actually doing so from a partisan perspective and was, in any case, free to do so--as long as she didn't do it while on duty or using government property.  That matters very little, however, when the effect of her having been accused of sedition for speaking out is reckoned for her and others.  It's just one more step toward silencing any voice of opposition.

Thanks. First, I should clarify I mentioned the Hatch Act because it was the only thing that came to mind that potentially had relevance. Offhand, I don't even think we've had a sedition statute since they were struck down, IIRC, slightly after the First World War.

I haven't worked with Hatch Act case law in more decades that I want to remember. Nevertheless, it doesn't take away political speech. In the case of something not affiliated with a partisan organization or campaign, such as this, "Throw the Republican bum(s) out" would be on the edge. "Throw the bums out", even substituing "president" or "administration" for "bums," is probably in.

Had she been a member of one of the uniformed services, there would be much more UCMJ law that applied, in the area of public criticism of the chain of comand. Unless she is in the technically uniformed Public Health Service, that would be irrelevant here. Unless it's in some context of field operations, there's much less UCMJ emphasis for the small scientific staffs of the PHS and NOAA Commissioned Corps, and even the Coast Guard is a little more relaxed than the Army, Navy and Air Force. With the latter, it still seems that the line is speaking in public in uniform, or identifying oneself by organization. Military blogs with disclaimers, and legitimate care about operational security, are not especially harassed.

While I'd agree the Administration is doing a fair bit to chill speech, I also suspect that this case involved overzealous local people. Setting a good example is not a constitutional duty of elected officials, and I'm not really sure it should be outside the context of one's job.