The US Supreme Court has just rendered (is this a pun?) their decision that employees of the government are not entitled to the protections of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause when they report suspected legal or ethical abuse within government channels (i.e. to their superiors or co-workers).

An explanatory opinion appears to assert that this "probably" doesn't deprive them of freedom to speak "in public" when they do not act in an official capacity.

This latter opinion overlooks the fact that many government agencies prohibit, either in an oath taken at the time of employment and/or in the employment contract, any comment on the affairs of the government "outside the agency," usually whether or not the comments relate to the agency employing them.

This "contractural" prohibition largely (and confirmably) has been applied to prevent "government employees" from active support of or opposition to political candidates by participation in campaign organizations, and this bar has also been upheld, I believe, in some US District Courts; although there are also decisions holding that it is illegal.

My personal experience (admittedly some years ago) was that members of the military are pretty much prevented from any political campaign involvement while assigned to active duty, even when "on leave," and are (were) uniformly told - emphatically - that disciplinary action would be applied if they did so. It seems there was an "Executive Order" on this even 'way back in the early 60s.

I have only a brief newspaper notice on this decision at present, but it apparently "supports" opinions expressed and implemented by our President in recent weeks, that numerous legal practitioners and theorists have contested, and appears to have been(?) swayed from the opposite earlier opinions of lower (US District) Courts by the most recently appointed Justices.

John