Aussie Public Servant Criticises Gov't On Twitter, Gets Sacked 151
An anonymous reader writes "An Australian public servant who criticised the government on Twitter has been sacked even though she did not reveal her name or her job to her readers. Federal Judge Warwick Neville told her Australians had no 'unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression.' Unlike Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech. The new ruling makes means public servants cannot criticize the government on social media, even privately and in their own time."
Free speech and beard (Score:5, Insightful)
Both must be feared
The will of the few
Owns what you do
Burma Shave
Re:Free speech and beard (Score:4, Interesting)
Free speech and beard
Both must be feared
The will of the few
Owns what you do
Burma Shave
That.... that is actually damn insightful.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Free speech and beard (Score:1)
Once again the flame is snuffed from liberty candle, Jack. Freedom of speech and expre
Re: (Score:3)
Both have very large sharks.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the government shark was jumped long ago.
Crikey! (Score:5, Funny)
A Dingo ate my freedom!
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody will believe you... (Score:3)
Nobody will believe you... until the find the bones of freedom in a dingo's lair years later.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Purely out of curiosity, are you familiar with the case you're referencing?
Because a mother losing her baby daughter to a dingo attack and then being falsely convicted of her murder (with the outlandish suggestion it was a cult sacrifice from certain media outlets) hardly seems the subject for humor. In terms of justice the initial trial was comparable to the Salem witch trials complete with racism, bad forensics, mishandled evidence, dubious expert witness testimony, religious hatred, and a large dose o
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like exactly the type of thing that people would make jokes about.
Why did Hitler kill himself?
He saw his gas bill
Re: (Score:2)
The AC's "infallible government leadership" comment got downvoted to zero. The "Crikey Dingo" comment got karmaed to 5. This is the kind of crap I usually return to Slashdot for after getting disappointed with the massmind idiots on Reddit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to judge why in the early 80's it seemed like a good idea to take a new born camping. But since then there have been reports of dingos taking children in other situations, such as on Frasier Island from a resort hotel where the balcony door had been left open.
there goes that (Score:1, Funny)
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
Re:there goes that (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
One can only hope this is the case. Unfortunately, I think that also in Australia, there are thousands of people who will either argue that "they have to somehow pay their bills", or that "they have nothing to hide", or any other stupid argument. And otherwise, the govt. can always promise to pay 5000 $ more per year than in similar jobs elsewhere, which is no doubt enough to shut up a whole lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
They should just get it over with and do a labor lottery.
On the upside you won't get dedicated shills. This is presumably the logic behind jury pools.
Glory to Arstotska!
Re: (Score:2)
"they have to somehow pay their bills"
I don't quite see how you judge that to be a stupid argument. Or do you think absolutely anyone can find a job if they wish hard enough? People do have to eat.
Re: (Score:2)
People have to eat. But I can suggest a lot of jobs more ethical then working for the government: Crack dealer, Heroin dealer, Assassin, prostitute...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But you don't risk arrest and losing the ability to feed your family by working for the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:there goes that (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
You might be surprised at how many people would be willing to have their mouths sewn shut, in exchange for money and power.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be surprised at how many people would be willing to have their mouths sewn shut, in exchange for money and power.
you mean for money and for being a tool of power.
since, because of this intepretation of rights, by definition once you apply for public servant job you no longer have any power. it's the power of someone else and you're no longer allowed to influence that.
which sort of makes sense too, actually, which is kinda weird.
Even though she did not reveal her name or her job (Score:2, Insightful)
Sacking... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sacking... (Score:5, Interesting)
That particular example is specific to the military, though; soldiers have never been considered to have the same freedoms as civilians, even in the early years of the US.
Civilian government employees do have some degree of free-speech protection [umkc.edu]. The main caveat is that any employer (including a private-sector employer) can fire employees for speech criticizing the employer, in some cases, and that is also true when the government is acting in its role as an employer. However the government is somewhat more limited than a private-sector employer in how it uses this power.
Re:Sacking... (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you have a working relationship with your employer, when in your free time you are actively working against them. You can't. Sacking is the right thing to do. As she works in the communications department and seems to be from a legal background she should have known what she was getting in for, there are no excuses.
She has freedom of speech, they have freedom to sack incompatible employees. Case closed.
Jason.
Re:Sacking... (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you have a working relationship with your employer, when in your free time you are actively working against them. You can't. Sacking is the right thing to do. As she works in the communications department and seems to be from a legal background she should have known what she was getting in for, there are no excuses.
Criticising your employer doesn't mean you are working against them. If your company does something that is wrong, then stopping them from doing what's wrong is actually good for them. Obviously your boss might not see it that way.
Re:Sacking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well in Government that's what whistleblowing procedures are for. You do not blog about it and expect to keep your job.
The best analogy is insider trading. When you are supposed to be supporting elected politicians, you need to keep some neutrality. If you have different political views you could undermine the government / elected officials through what you pick up behind closed doors and then expose. This isn't fair to the elected official and trust is breached.
Jason.
Re:Sacking... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have different political views you could undermine the government / elected officials through what you pick up behind closed doors and then expose.
You can't possibly expect a civil servants political views to always align with those of the government unless you assume they change them every time a different political party comes into power. Would you overturn the civil service every time an election is held?
And unless you civil service is composed entirely of apolitical workers, you can't expect them all to be 'neutral' outside of the office.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually that'd be a good idea. Make sure that all civilian service members are fired and new ones hired for ever administration change. Have a requirement that the elected political officer in office has to publicly re-interview every position after election. Should help keep small transparent government.
Re: (Score:2)
All that organisational knowledge going out the door every 3-4 years? Awesome for efficiency and productivity I'm sure.
You had better hope you are never dependent on services provided by a government for anything critical.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was kept to no more than a couple hundred people per elected position it could be done.
Re: (Score:2)
wow - under your scheme my employer would have to add an additional 4000 staff.
You really thought that one through.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have miss interpreted "no more than" to be "at least"
Please re-read now that I've clarified that for you.
Re:Sacking... (Score:5, Insightful)
You've actually just described much better than I could the reasons why you have to be politically neutral. Civil Servants remain when the individual elected members change, therefore you must effectively close your trap and not get involved in politics, except where you are permitted such as the polling booth.
You are kind of also overlooking the point that civil servants have a unique opportunity to advise and guide the politicians. Sure it might not be appropriate for you to speak out on twitter, but you would certainly be able to use your position to influence.
Just think of the power a civil servant would have if you could influence in the office, vote in the polling booth, as well as undermine in public using information that is not in the public domain. That's far too much power.
Jason.
Re: (Score:3)
If what you're exposing is illegal then it shouldn't matter. Once an elected official decides to break the law, he is no longer entitled to be acting on behalf of the government. There's a doctrine called "ultra vires" which covers this sort of thing, and it can also apply to corporations who act outside the boundaries of their charter.
There's also something called the "stripping doctrine" which effectively rips the veil of government off of an official who goes outside the bounds of the law.
Wikipedia has
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely sounds like something we should be using in America.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about illegal matters. There will be many near misses and hidden details, things that only your support staff and civil servants will know. Details that are on a need to know basis. An insider can know enough to discredit a politician with carefully worded questions that force them to expose some of these near misses or hidden details. An insider working for or against you, can make or break you politically.
Jason
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're hiding something that will ruin you if it gets out, perhaps you deserve to be broken anyway.
Do I have to go over watergate again?
Re: (Score:3)
How can you have a working relationship with your employer, when in your free time you are actively working against them.
Companies represent private interests; governments [are supposed to] represent public interests. You, sir, are an idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
You are CEO of Big Business Inc... Your wife is working for your competitor under her maiden name, she is feeding you insider information.
She is caught, what would happen ?
Jason.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is criticizing something equal to working against them?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a psychopath? Always.
Re: (Score:2)
Private sector employers can fire for any reason at all, including reasons that are blatantly retaliatory (unless the feds say otherwise, such as for a civil rights issue).
Example:
1. You scoop your landlord and beat him to the punch snagging a front row seat to the superbowl.
2. Your landlord decides to go postal and tries to evict you over it.
3. You manage to squash the eviction by showing you haven't broken your lease and exposing that your landlord is a total bullshitter.
4. Your landlord is enraged, b
Re: (Score:2)
In most of the West that would be blatantly illegal. Might be hard to prove though.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the only illegal part is the blacklisting.
Under the doctrine of at-will employment though, it's unfortunately not illegal for your boss to fire you because you pissed off his buddy buddy chum chum, even if he was a sourpuss landlord that got burned for being petty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The blacklisting on the other hand, would be enough to leave you owning your former employer. Blacklisting is also fucking easy to prove, which is why nobody gives bad references anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However the government is somewhat more limited than a private-sector employer in how it uses this power.
In that the government as employer is still bound the by constitution while other private employers are not. Public criticism of the government by a government employee falls squarely in the domain of the 1st amendment meaning there is no way in hell they would get fired for that.
Re: (Score:2)
In the military the POTUS is your ultimate commanding officer, criticising your superior officer in public is insubordination. Things in the military are not the same as things in civilian life. This is very much different than the incindent in the linked article.
Re: (Score:1)
Freedom of speech is very limited in the U.S.
When the encrypted e-mail service that Snowden used, had to shut down,
and they were not allowed to speak why they did it or what the NSA demanded.
Congress had put an end to free speech and this should be kown by now.
You are not allow to say "the NSA had dropped by my house yesterday and ordered me to install
a device in my hosting company" or "the NSA demanded that I install a backdoor in
my e-mail system, therefore I am shutting down.
All this free speach in the U.
Re: (Score:2)
America is a country of religious crazies ruled by lawyers. At least when I visited Australia (admittedly only for two weeks), your prisoners seemed to be nicer than our religious nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
America was founded by convicted criminals as well, who far outnumbered the tiny minority of settlers escaping religious persecution.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always someone who says "we're not that different" and then sets up a completely bogus comparison. Soldiers and civilians aren't in the same league in terms of rights.
The reality is that the UK and its byproducts don't really have freedoms like we have, and various examples of government misconduct related to whatever paranoia is getting votes these days don't make us "like them."
Re: (Score:1)
They are born with those rights.
I am highly skeptical of this claim. What evidence do you have to support it?
There is a difference (Score:1)
He was legally able to criticize the administration, but doing so was bad form and he technically resigned his position and retired Just look at some of the statements Colin Powell made. Compare American laws with Australia's:
"Private use relates to the use of social media by ATO employees for private, non-work or job-related purposes in their own time using their own resources as private citizens, or using ATO IT facilities during work hours. This may include accessing and using your private Twi
Re: (Score:2)
The US military has always been an exception constitutionally guarantee rights. You give up your rights when you join.
Furthermore, if you badmouth the company you work for, they can certainly fire you. Freedom to choose who to associate with at your business is just as much an essential freedom as free speech.
The real problem is that government employment creates a special category of employees, where rights, interests, and obligations conflict much more than in private sector employment. The solution to th
Re: (Score:2)
Because military law applies to civilians. Ummm. No.
In the military you're required to have proper respect for the chain of command, which means not being disrespectful to the CinC (and Congress, which writes the laws). And the more senior you are, the more you're required to be respectful. Privates can get away with things that generals can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Because military law applies to civilians. Ummm. No.
In the military you're required to have proper respect for the chain of command,
You're also supposed to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies, but I guess that one (which is actually part of the oath) isn't taken as seriously?
Re:Sacking... (Score:5, Interesting)
OT: There is an advertisement up in the subway station under the Pentagon by some group called the Oath Keepers that says: "Snowden honored his oath. Honor yours; expose unconstitutional actions."
Military and politics don't mix. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you seriously comparing a civil employee to a military officer?
If you're an officer, you're not criticizing "the administration", you're criticizing your commanders. Most people in the military understand why they shouldn't even consider getting involved in politics...if you need to understand why military shouldn't be involved in politics, I cannot help you. A history book can, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people in the military understand why they shouldn't even consider getting involved in politics...if you need to understand why military shouldn't be involved in politics, I cannot help you. A history book can, however.
The founding fathers understood that a standing army should not even exist. And history books will back them up. This is one of the reasons. If we didn't have a standing army, the question of whether it should be involved in politics would never come up. We wouldn't have to deny thous
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, joining the military is a voluntary operation where you give up your rights in exchange for a cut of the DoD payroll budget.
Your argument would hold more water if people were conscripted though.
Re: (Score:2)
You all are looking at it the wrong way.
Yes, this person criticized the government, but more importantly, she publicly criticized her employer and that is why both she, and General McChrystal lost their jobs. I would expect no different if someone in the private sector criticized his employer.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But with vastly different contract terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to Bradley Manning...
Where was this ruling made? (Score:5, Funny)
A boy named Sue (Score:3)
The case is linked to one of the government's most prolific official tweeters, Immigration Department spokesman Sandi Logan, who heads the communications team in which Ms Banerji worked.
There is a danger when you work for a boss who's angry at the world because his parents gave him a girl's name.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. Seems like panties would be like a cheap hotel...no ballroom.
They are pervs. Women's panties should only be worn on your head (breathing through the crotch, eyes looking through the leg holes).
Have all the Anglo countries gone insane? (Score:1)
Seriously, it seems like every Anglo country is going down the path to authoritarianism.
Re:Have all the Anglo countries gone insane? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
More and more, the reason that we're hearing about the abuses is because someone was willing to go to jail to expose them.
My hope comes from that fact that there are people brave enough to sacrifice for their beliefs, and that the authorities aren't powerful enough to silence them completely. We are not completely lost.
the problem with freedom of speech ... (Score:2)
... is that people might actually use it
just for the "by the way file" there are slander and libel laws in most "free" countries - so no, you aren't free to say whatever pops into your head, but you are supposed to be "free within the law" to express yourself
Re: (Score:1)
Slander is considered an attack (i.e. a form of coercion) -- a deliberate action intended to cause harm to the victim. That is, of course, why there are laws against it. The fact that it comes out of somebody's mouth is irrelevant. The spirit of the law here is not "freedom of speech, except for a, b, c, d, and e" (which would obviously void the very concept of freedom of speech), but rather "freedom of speech, provided you do not violate the equal civil rights of others".
The age-old "yelling fire in a thea
Slashdot counts too (Score:4, Interesting)
she should have done it (Score:2)
We should be doing this (Score:2, Funny)
in the USA. It's not right for citizens to criticize elected politicians. Nothing brings greater shame to your family name than saying unkind things about your leaders.
Why are politicians in America criticized for what they do? I'll tell you why! The people that are elected are inherently more intelligent than the common folk that they lord over, and the little people are simply incapable of understanding the complexities and nuances of proper politics. The stupid plebs need us to make rules and laws for th
Re: (Score:1)
At least they are safe (Score:1)
We'll see (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll see if this actually stands up in the High Court.
In practice, this is unworkable - how can someone be sacked for holding a political view that does not impact the exercise of their duties? that screams discrimination, it screams an unworkable scenario for the exercise of government. It stinks - and the governments policy on refugees stinks as well, it's cruel and inhumane and repugnant to right minded people, it's unaustralian, it brings shame to this country, and it's architects ought to be ashamed..
Now fire me if you dare.
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, this is unworkable - how can someone be sacked for holding a political view that does not impact the exercise of their duties? that screams discrimination, it screams an unworkable scenario for the exercise of government. It stinks .
It's very disappointing, and if I wasn't an Australian public servant I might have an opinion about this story and your comment.
Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Australians, like Americans have a natural right to unfettered free speech. The only question is whether or not they will constitute governments to protect that right.
Workaround (Score:2)
This isn't funny (Score:2, Insightful)
'Judge Neville found Australians had no ''unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression''.'
Well they certainly don't now that he's made his 'judgment'.
Who decided that 'Australians had no "unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression'? Certainly not the Australian people.
"The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny."
Unlike Americans (Score:1)
"Unlike Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech."
Pfffftttt.
Right to have been sacked (Score:2)
This woman worked in the communications team of the immigration department. Her private twitter feed directly criticised that department, effectively running a private communications channel for the department. Its not like she just posted something critical of Kevin Rudd or whatever. She went too close to her day job with her private tweets.
Read TFA: Judge a bonehead, but ruling justified. (Score:2)
You are not entitled as a public servant to criticise your own department anonymously from within that department. That would and should get you fired just as it would if you were in the private sector. If you're not happy, change the system from within (chain of command) OR openly become a whistleblower OR get out of the system and lodge your complaints openly. To sneak commentary anonymously from within is the action of a coward who isn't sure that the complaint is actually defensible.
Re:Americans have limited Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, gag orders. Just last week someone shut down their encrypted email service and was not able to talk about what happened for legal reasons. That's a blatant violation of his first amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2)
That bugged me.
If he decided to close shop rather than bend to the will of the rulers, why didn't he also shout the reasons from the roof tops?
Re: (Score:2)
Because he didn't want to go to prison? Because he didn't want to end up paying a fine?
Re: (Score:2)
I got that.
But if he already lost his job, why not go to jail - free rent, food, clothes. The neighbors suck, but they will when he has to move from lack of income too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He shut down his business. He still has skills. I bet he already has another job or venture on the line.
He might just be moving overseas and be in the process of rebooting.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention a certain person who has been forced to seek asylum in Russia for practicing free speech. I'm not aware of any exceptions in the American Bill of Rights for national secrets.
Of course there can be conflicts in rights, eg the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that in some cases an individuals right to fundamental justice can, for a while such as the length of a court case, override the groups right to speech as having an impartial jury is important to having a fair trial.
Re:Americans have limited Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there can be conflicts in rights, eg the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that in some cases an individuals right to fundamental justice can, for a while such as the length of a court case, override the groups right to speech as having an impartial jury is important to having a fair trial.
Courts mistake an informed jury for a partial jury. By allowing courts to manage the information a jury hears, they in fact create partial juries. The correct solution to a jury that is swayed by speech is more speech that counters the first speech. Whoever runs out of valid arguments first is the loser.
Can you imagine if we held scientists, who are also supposed to be impartial judges of evidence, to the standards of a jury? Instead of submitting papers for peer review by experts, we'd be submitting them to people who are prohibited from knowing anything about the field.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Under the Anglo system lawyers get the judge to hide evidence from the jury because they are too stupid to understand it. Like prior convictions.
The Anglo system is the problem.
http://www.amazon.com/Corrupt-Legal-System-Evan-Whitton/dp/1921681071 [amazon.com]
"The lawyer-run adversary system used in Britain and its former colonies, including the US, India, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia doe
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is when they're informed by hearsay, half-truths and out right fantasy. Do you want to be tried by a jury who has already decided that not only are you guilty but are guilty of the most heinous crimes when they show up for jury duty? When the press is doing all the speech and you're sitting in jail, it is hard to counter the speech. As for the scientist part, the sibling made the points that I would.
The cases I can think of that have had publication bans have been pretty horrible, Paul Barnardo