I’m interested both in the general case, and in my specific situation, which I present here as an illustration.
I don’t consider myself a civil servant, and I don’t think anyone else would, either. I’m a graduate student in a department at a university, a department which is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute, which as far as I know is under the direct aegis of the US government. As such, my department uses a lot of Smithsonian facilities for research and education, including a web server where reside, among other things, our personal web pages.
They sent out an email to everyone asking that we clean up our web directories, get rid of unnecessary files, etc.
I happen to have a copy of the UDHR on my webpage, and an original sentence or two about human rights. I’m no activist by any means, but it’s something I care about. I suppose I’ll have to remove it. I’m not horribly upset about this, but it did get me thinking, and I’m not sure that I’m a big fan of Smithsonian Directive 931.
931 sounds like everything else the government uses to try to avoid sentiment among the masses on pretty much any topic. If gummint institutions don’t say nuthin’ ‘bout nuthin’, nobody can complain about what it says.
However, I should note that I work for the government, but I also am prohibited from saying anything I’d actually like to. I’m active military, and I’m a journalist. Let me tell you, it gets extremely frustrating to not be able to say crap is crap.
My boss, who is a civilian, manages to get things done that are obviously negative towards the many outsourcing initiatives that are ongoing, and I like that.
Government workers are voters, after all. While I can’t speak for the details of 931, I don’t think anyone will care if you have a few comments on your personal Web site, what they want to avoid is seeing their employees in a human rights walk down Pennsylvania Blvd. on TV. I do understand where they are coming from, but I don’t like it.
Ideally, people should be able to say whatever they want about whatever, but realistically, anything that can alter public opinion, sway a poll or result in a lawsuit is a veritable pox in politics.
This is similar to the case of the professor at Indiana University which is currently brewing. (I think that there’s been a thread in GD or the Pit about it, but I’m not sure.) In this case, it seems very clear that your ability to self-publish at will can be legitimately limited when you’re not the owner of the space where that publishing is occurring.
If you want to have a “personal” web page, you can get one for free in a number of places, or own your own domain and get web hosting for a nominal fee per month. What you have now is not “personal” beyond the fact that you’ve personally written it.
Of course, my opinion is predicated on the fact I’m not aware that there is any governmental oversight of the Smithsonian, in fact, I’m pretty sure of it. (Unfortunately, the website doesn’t explain exactly what its status is, there was a National Trust created by President Polk but that doesn’t mean much.) Even if there were, considering Smithsonian employees as “civil servants” or government employees seems a stretch. This doesn’t come across as government quashing speech, this comes across as a server owner having standards for what is placed on that server, under its name, by its employees.
Achernar, pretend that the Smithsonian was a private institution for a second. Do you have any problem with private entities - such as the Chicago Reader - exercising control over what is and is not published on websites that they pay for?
Why should a public institution be any different?
Gorgon Heap, thanks. Good comments. I’d like to hear people’s response to your post as much as to the OP.
I hadn’t heard about that; it sounds like you’re talking about Eric Rasmusen. But let me make it clear that I am in no way questioning the legitimacy of this Directive; I’m questioning whether it’s a good idea.
As far as I know, my university doesn’t have any sort of policy like this. Nor did my undergrad university. It sounds like the same can certainly be said of Indiana University. The Smithsonian is an academic institution like the others. I admit that I really have no idea why they have this Directive, but their governmental link seemed like a reasonable guess. I may be completely wrong, though; it’s really just speculation.
No of course not, but why would they make such a broad restriction at all? The Chicago Reader certainly doesn’t, as we can post political opinions on this message board. ISP’s that give web space don’t do it, in my experience.
Hmm… essentially most of the civil service restrictions on political expression are indeed about doing it on the agency’s time/property or in such a manner as your expression may be misidentified as abetted by the agency – reasonable, because taxpayers of all persuasions sustain the agency and expect service from it.
In the case of peculiar combination public/independent institutions like the Smithsonian, they have an interest in keeping open the avenues of support from individual citizens and corporate/institutional donors, so they will be very careful about what they host. Though as Gorgon mentions, a simple page about the UDHR should not be a problem except for any actual policy-advocacy material among your comments. (e.g.: “The UDHR says people should have a right to Health Care” is a factual report. “Americans’ right to Health Care under the UDHR is not recognized by our government, in violation of the UN Charter” is a political opinion)
Of course it’s a good idea. The government pretty much has an all or nothing option. By simply banning everything in that category, it prevents some employee from putting up a White Power site or something on their server.
Here is a site about The Hatch Act which governs political activities by federal employees.
As far as prohibiting the use of government computers for political purposes, or having such material on the computer, as Sua Sponte said, all businesses that I know of have rules against using their computers for non business.
I think Achernar’s response ducks the issue. Chicago Reader certainly controls the content of this board. The fact that political opinions can be posted on a board devoted to the expression of political opinions doesn’t change that fact one bit.
I think you may be reading too much into Directive 931. Within the confines of your business, your company can restrict what’s on its computer systems, because while you’re there, you’re ostensibly there to work for the company, not to write personal Op-Ed pieces. There’s probably a big motivation from the company to inoculate themselves against lawsuits based on this or that harrassment.
However, the minute you walk out the door, you should be able to put on your politically-themed t-shirt and go home and self-publish your views on a website that you’ve obtained withou using company resources. If this Directive is trying to limit what you say in your free time, then I’d say it’s heavy-handed.
My father thanked Congress for the Hatch Act every time some politico asked him for a donation or help on a campaign. Because few people knew its specifics he could stretch it as the occasion warranted, like the donations I mentioned. “Sorry, Bob, but the Hatch Act won’t let me help you.”
There was an interesting local case… The city was voting on a library bond. The city librarians were generally in favor of it, and were wearing tags and buttons urging library patrons to votr for the measure.
One bloke I know, however, opposed the measure (even though his job might have depended on its passage.) So he insisted on his equal rights to wear a button against the measure.
In the end, the library supervisor (wisely, in my opinion) made everyone stop wearing campaign buttons.
(And I once got a policeman in trouble for affixing a campaign bumper sticker to his patrol car!)
Gorgon: I hope to high heaven you’re not even close to being an NCO, a PO, or a Commissioned Officer. Your portrayal of what a military journalist can & can’t say is pure bunk. Hie ye to the appropriate sources–UCMJ and the relevant regulations/instructions/manuals–governing your career as a military journalist.
I work part-time for the government, a government which is run by an administration I have long despised. I have been demonstrating against them longer than I’ve been working here, and I’m amused by the frantic “Watch out for the scary protest that’s happening this weekend” e-mail broadcasts that are sent to everyone before a demo.
I have marched past my own workplace. Not, of course, with a sign saying “I’m a Government Employee,” but I wouldn’t lie about it, either.
I don’t believe my job as a civil servant (non-partisan, etc etc) can interfere with my right to assembly, to free speech, etc.
I know this isn’t exactly your question, but it’s something I’ve thought about a lot, given the extent to which I dislike the gvt. But I really, strongly feel that as long as I’m acting on my own and not as a gvt agent, it is my right to say what I like about it.
Monty, I would love to know what the heck you are talking about. I specifically said I cannot write anything negative politically or state my own personal views without getting into trouble.
I truly don’t understand what you are calling “bunk.”
I think its been made clear, when you are on company time you should refrain from any personal political, religious or social platform. You are not being paid to protest against an issue or endorse your personal views.
What you do on your time although cannot be dictated (within of course the rule of law). You are free to promote or protest any issue you so chose
If this were an issue of “We don’t want you wasting company resources on something personal.” then I would go along. However, it seems to me like it’s more an issue of “We don’t want you to have any political opinions at all, but we don’t have any authority over that, so we’ll use whatever authority we do have.” Does that make sense?
It’s true, David Simmons, that the computer resources I use are not “devoted to the expression of political opinions”, but they’re not devoted to wedding and vacation photos, either. They don’t seem to have a problem with those.
I guess I am thinking of myself as a student, which may be critical here. A student does not represent their university the same way an employee represents their company. However, I have to think that in academic employment, a little carte blanche approval of free thought and expression is probably a good thing, overall.
Monty: The Uniform Code of Military Justice is pretty long. Can’t you be more specific about what you’re talking about than, “You’re wrong. See UCMJ.”
Yyyyyyeah. My second paragraph is about writing what I personally would like to write but can’t. I would love to write an editorial peice calling the current executive branch a bunch or arrogent, warmongering jackals, but it certainly won’t get published and I’ll probably have my ass in a serious sling if anyone finds out what I wrote. Thus my saying I can’t say crap is crap.
In fact, there have been countless times we have had to drop doing a planned Man on the Street because anybody in uniform would only be able to answer, “I support the President in this and we are going to go and do our jobs.”
My point, which I didn’t make very clear, was that your post seemed to me to be comparing company computer resources that are used in their own internal business affairs and the SDMB which Chicago Reader maintains for the purpose of allowing the general public a place to make all sorts of comments. The two are completely different animals.
I suppose if your company doesn’t take any action to prevent the use of their computers for personal stuff but suddenly clamps down in case of political statements and there is no advance written policy on the matter, then an employee might have grounds for a lawsuit. Our numerous lawyers can answer that one. But would it be smart to sue your employer over that?
The Chicago Reader doesn’t place limits on expression of political opinions on these boards, but it certainly places numerous other restrictions. Some of them are normal, common sense restrictions - no links to kiddie porn, etc.- but some of them are peculiar to the CR’s interests. For example, the moderators and administrators are extremely strict, much more than some other message boards, about barring the inappropriate use of copyrighted material or links to file-sharing services, because CR, as a newspaper, has a strong interest in respect for copyrights.
As for your comparison to ISPs, that’s a poor analogy. You pay ISPs to use the web space, either directly or by being subjected to their ads. Your employer gets no benefit, and indeed incurs a cost, when you use their web space for your own private purposes. So they get to decide how you use it.
It is actually, IMO, more appropriate for a government-funded organization to ban use of their web space to promote their employees’ private political causes than it is for a private employer. If you promote your causes on a government-funded website, the government is effectively supporting a particular political POV. The government should be neutral, and certainly should not be using taxpayer money to support a political cause that many of said taxpayers may disagree with.