1/ Hello @TheBuffaloNews, might I suggest speaking with someone who knows even just the basics of constitutional law before publishing an editorial like this to make sure that you don't beclown yourselves? This is embarrassing.
2/ You couldn't even finish the first *sentence* without saying something bafflingly ridiculous.
Whether or not the government's compelling interests could be done in a more measured (i.e., less restrictive) way IS (part of) the constitutional analysis in First Amendment claims.
3/ If the govt addresses its interest it in a way that isn't the least restrictive, it violates the First Amendment. This is basic, 1L (or before) stuff. Questioning whether the decision was based on the least restrictive means test or the First Amendment is utter nonsense.
2/ It starts off innocently enough, correctly noting that the First Amendment protects a variety of expressive means and that public employees do not forfeit their First Amendment right to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern.
3/ And whatever its problems (and lordy are there problems), Garcetti v. Ceballos is law and public employee speech made "pursuant to official duties" isn't constitutionally protected
Speech made as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, however, is generally protected
Guy who says he's into "nationalist politics" reminisces wistfully about the time racist white guy @ColbyCovMMA beat up on @TWooodley, noting that Woodley said "Black Lives Matter."
The introduction to these Zoom CLE panelists that includes a judge talking about "whether the First Amendment should protect hate speech" has me expecting the worst and looking for the liquor.
Lord help me this slide is from an appellate court judge.
And he just said that "you can either protect people or protect speech. It is one or the other."