BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
Thanks. So, main points:
1) Was it political? In Anderson's case, it was not political. I watched the video twice. Keep in mind that restrictions of political activity for publics servants in the US comes from the Hatch Act of 1939. 'For purposes of the Hatch Act, political activity is defined as "an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office or partisan political group".' I don't see how his video meets this definition. Granted, this is for federal public servants and local definitions could vary. It is the best encompassing definition we could get countrywide though.
2) Was it controversial? This is more difficult to pinpoint since it carries a higher degree of subjectivity, but I hope we would agree that a message in support of the constitution and of the oath he took is not a controversial topic. There was some irritation in his tone, but I don't see that necessarily making his message controversial.
3) Did it violate social media policy? I can't quite tell because I have not seen the department's policy. However, policy typically allows for discretion. In this case, his superiors liked the video. They came later and asked him to remove it. If the department policy prohibits speech that supports the constitution while allowing other speech, then I'd argue that the policy is crap. I understand that most departments have social media policies, but the existence of policies that prove that the policies are just or correct.
He could have just as easily done the video off duty and out of uniform and avoided every bit of that as a question. Nobody, including his department, is suggesting he can't have or broadcast an opinion.
So for his cheerleaders, why do it on duty and in uniform? Is his opinion somehow not valid if he does it in street clothes and on his own time? Or can you only patriot while on the clock?