If I wanted somebody for something like this, I’d just haul them in administratively and order them to tell me who they’d contacted, scrupulously adhering to their due process rights and any union rights they might have of course. I’d be hoping they’d turn guardhouse lawyer on me and try to refuse to tell me on 1st or 5th Am. grounds. When they refused, I’d just fire them for refusing a lawful order then sit back to see how much money and how many friends they had.

As I said, it’s usually pretty safe to be a Democrat or Democrat sympathizer leaking and sabotaging a Republican administration because the Republicans usualy won’t do anything about it. Democrats will hunt you down and shoot you like a dog in the road. If I needed to be, I was a very well-connected and skillful leaker and I got out some very embarrasing information about a Democrat Administration I worked for. They knew I did it but they couldn’t prove it and they hounded me endlessly about it and almost got me.

The link to the Sonoran Alliance story makes clear that the peeps at the Sonoran Alliance were editorializing on material routinely sent to them in the form of pressers, for heaven’s sake!!

But since the Sonoran Alliance maintains strict anonymity for its contributors, Smith is demanding they divulge names because he’s tired of getting his candy a$$ handed to him on the blogs.

It is, of course, possible that there are instances where some of the bloggers in question have crossed the line you so clearly point out. In that case, let Smith point out the instances and note which parts are a violation of confidentiality and then we can talk. Until then, demanding that bloggers out themselves because you have a title and some authority seems to me to most definitely be a slap at the 1st amendment.

But then, not only do I not play a lawyer on TV, I neglected to stay at a Holiday Inn last night as well …

First, the 9th Circuit says that an employee’s speech made in the course of their job is not 1st Am. protected individual speech but rather the employee is an agent of the government and consequently, the employee’s speech is the government’s speech. Therefore, if an employee speaks under color of their office, there is no individual 1st Am. protection available. (Can’t remember the cite but it was a ciy attorney v. Gil Garcetti, former LA DA.) The employee does not have to go so far as indicating that he is speaking in his capacity as the Widget Making Manager for the Government. If he is divulging knowledge that he could only have as the result of being a government employee, he is engaging in government speech, not individual speech. There are some very explicit protections under “whistleblower” laws, but if an employee is planning to use those protections, there’s better not be any underlying misconduct and he’d best have tried to bring the matter to the attention of his superiors.

Second, most state and local ethics acts also specifically prohibit divulging or making use of for personal benefit any information obtained in the course of one’s duties that has not already been divulged to the public. Seeking a political advantage has been considered to be a benefit within this provision by many administrative agencies and courts. Here, likewise, there are specific whistleblower protections but they are limited and very explicit in most whistleblower laws.

Bottom line: even in a government job, if you don’t like what your boss is doing, unless what he’s doing and your reactions comport with a whistleblower law, you’d best either keep your mouth shut or find other employment.

Actually, what I find remarkable about this story is that it is usually perfectly safe to leak, thwart, and sabotage Republican officeholders, so there’s some back story here.