The case again raises the question of when personal statements of public employees can be used against them. {UPDATE: Cox responds to our posting]
In this case, Cox reportedly stated that riot police should sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin Capitol building where they were protesting labor legislation. One of its reporters investigated the comment and discovered it was Cox. When confronted, however, Cox went further and called the protesters
“political enemies” and “thugs” who were “physically threatening legally-elected officials.” He then reportedly added “You’re damned right I advocate deadly force” on the protesters. He later called the reporter a “typical leftist” and when asked for “context” of his remarks, he replied “For ‘context?’ Or to silence me? All my comments on twitter and my blog are my own and no one else’s. And I can defend them all.”
Mother Jones reports that he also made such bizarre remarks as asking “Planned Parenthood could help themselves if the only abortions they performed were retroactive”?
The Indiana Attorney General’s office promptly announced that Cox is “no longer employed by the state.” The question is whether Cox has any free speech arguments in this incident. Assuming that he was commenting in his private time, he was discussing matters in a different state and did not associate his office with his remarks. Indeed, it appears that his initial comments were anonymous. The Attorney General stated that he was enforcing a policy of “civility and courtesy toward all members of the public.” The free speech implications had clearly been discussed by his office. The statement emphasized that “[w]e respect individuals’ First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility.”
We have been discussing the line between public and private conduct in a myriad of cases (here is the latest). This case, in my view, raises some legitimate free speech issues, even though I find Cox’s remarks to be vile and unhinged. He made his comments in tweets and on a blog (that has now been shutdown) called Pro Cynic. His past comments included such advice on a “sensible policy” on Afghanistan as “KILL! KILL! ANNIHILATE!” According to the Mother Jones reporter, Cox corresponded on Tweets under the anonymous name JCCentCom — without using his real name or title.
Where Cox may have crossed the line is when he identified himself and then continued to make inflammatory comments. At that point, he may have associated his position with his remarks. He seemed fully aware of the implications of both his remarks and his association with those remarks, noting “you will probably try to demonize me, but that comes with the territory.”
What do you think?
Source: Daily Mail
Jonathan Turley