That's ridiculous, and could be illegal, because in changing the response, they are taking on the speech of the named employee. If that's not a first amendment violation, I don't know what is. Federal employees are not allowed to be involved in politics while they are employed by the federal government, I know there's exceptions and everything, but at its core this action is repugnant.
This isn't a company though, it's the government, and it's generally considered unprofessional if not illegal for federal employees to make partisan statements on the job. There's also the fact that, in my experience, out-of-office autoreplies are generally drafted by the employee while footers are often standardized by the employer.
Additionally, there are strict rules on what federal civil servants can do during a shutdown that don't really apply in private industry, which means whatever official channels would exist to complain probably aren't available. I don't think furloughed employees are supposed to send official email, either, which means they can't clarify who provided this message even if someone is confused by it.
> Today, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announces a new advisory rescinding the Hatch Act advisory opinion dated May 20, 2024, and a related advisory opinion dated October 15, 2024. The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activity of federal employees while they are on duty, in the federal workplace, or acting in their official capacity. The new Hatch Act advisory opinion (the “April 25 Advisory") supersedes the May 20, 2024, and October 15, 2024, opinions in three ways.
> First, OSC will return to its traditional practice of referring Hatch Act violations by White House Commissioned officers to the President for appropriate action.
> Second, OSC is pausing the referral of cases against former employees to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) until the legal question concerning jurisdiction is resolved.
> Third, OSC is discarding the “year-round workplace political item prohibition" on wearing or displaying of political candidate or political party items in the workplace related to the campaigns of “current or contemporaneous political figures (CCPFs)." In practice, the blanket prohibition created too great a burden on First Amendment interests.
So not judicial nor legislative. The Hatch Act has not changed, the president's OSC appointee has unsurprisingly decided that executive will investigate itself.
While you can grasp the barest of threads that your original statement was true because the OSC is "official" and anyone is afforded an interpretation, it's really goddamn deceptive. If anything is "the" intepretation it's derived from statute and/or common law, not one side's lawyers.
I mean, the OSC isn't some bunch of randoms who call themselves "official" for funsies. Violations of the Hatch Act fall under their jurisdiction. They're the ones that investigate violations. They put out a statement that says political messages (of a certain kind) are totally fine.
This means, to me, that claiming "The official interpretation of the Hatch act was changed" isn't at all a stretch. The officials,
the ones in charge of interpreting it, put out a statement saying they've changed how they're interpreting it. How is that deceptive? What words would you use instead?
The judiciary interprets the law. As I said, you can narrowly say OSC is "official" and "interprets" the law, but it's a deceptive way to describe the situation. Hopefully we'll see another group successully claim standing for being harmed by Hatch Act violations.
An honest way to describe the situation is "the Trump OSC has decided that Trump should investigate Trump and it is unclear if anyone else can sue for relief from a politicized civil service". At the very least "they've put out a statement saying they've changed their interpretation" is far better than the passive voice.
It feels off to frame this as a routine legal question when the branches themselves aren’t behaving routinely. The current executive has reduced the other branches to handmaidens of its will.
Government is not a company. It's less about overriding each person's OOO message (it is about in a small way) and much more about what the message is.
No, because that's a private company. Your first amendment right to the freedom of speech is freedom from government center ship and interference in your speech. It does not apply to private companies. Now with that said, adding a footer, I don't think would be a problem, but if you set an away message and they changed that for a political reason, then it could be said that they impersonating you to broadcast a political message. Then it might be a civil matter.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Did congress pass a law I missed? Government communication isn’t a 1st Amendment issue. When you work for any employer, you are subject to the whims of that employer.
Governments are not limited by the Hatch Act, civil service employees are. And the limitations are mainly around elections, so for example under the Hatch Act a civil service employee may not "use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election", may not "knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person", may not "run for the nomination or as a candidate for election to a partisan political office", and may not "knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity" of someone who the civil service employee is interacting with.
The Hatch Act of 1939, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law that prohibits "civil service employees in the executive branch"
>The laws are different when you work for the government.
Which laws? Because every government job I've come across has pretty strict rules on what you can and cannot say in public, or at least they way in which you have to frame it apart from your job.
I think there's two parts of that question. The first is that the law is the hatch act, federal employees may not engage in political activities. But the second thing is, the government is assuming your identity to change your speech and broadcast that speech as if you said it. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that would squarely follow government action to abridge your speech.
