In this article, I use the 2014 decision of Lane v. Franks as a jumping off point to revisit the rule of Garcetti v. Ceballos, that speech conducted pursuant to one’s public employment is unprotected by the First Amendment. I explain that Garcetti is emblematic of the Supreme Court’s failure to dig beneath the surface of its own long-standing acknowledgment that public employee speech holds special value. If one tunnels into that subterrane, one finds that the value of public employee speech is a function not just of content, but of form. Public employees play a special role under the First Amendment by virtue of their privileged access both to information and to communication channels for conveying it. The special communication channels to which employees have access – including internal channels – can be uniquely effective in supporting accountability and the rule of law, and thus in fulfilling core free speech values.I consider how a fuller conception of special value – as well as a more sharply defined government interest in limiting employee speech – ought to impact the doctrine of public employee speech. I propose that, where work product speech can confidently be identified, courts should consider whether employees were disciplined based on a genuine, not pretextual assessment of work product quality. Crucially, in cases where employees were hired to render independent professional judgments, disappointment with those judgments, not because they reflect low quality, but because they are politically or personally inconvenient for employers, should not be deemed quality-based assessments. Only disciplinary actions based on quality-based assessments should be exempt from further scrutiny. As a second-best, but perhaps more realistic near-term alternative, I also consider means to limit Garcetti’s reach.

中文翻译：

---

公职人员演讲的特殊价值

在本文中，我以 2014 年 Lane v. Franks 案的判决为起点，重新审视 Garcetti v. Ceballos 案的规则，即根据公共就业进行的言论不受第一修正案的保护。我解释说，加塞蒂象征着最高法院未能深入挖掘其长期以来承认公职人员言论具有特殊价值的表面。如果深入到那个地下，就会发现公务员演讲的价值不仅在于内容，还在于形式。公共雇员在第一修正案中发挥着特殊作用，因为他们享有获取信息和传播信息的沟通渠道的特权。员工可以使用的特殊沟通渠道——包括内部渠道——可以在支持问责制和法治方面发挥独特的作用，从而实现核心的言论自由价值。更明确地界定政府在限制员工言论方面的利益——应该会影响公职人员言论的学说。我建议，在可以自信地识别工作产品言论的情况下，法院应考虑员工是否基于对工作产品质量的真实而非借口评估而受到纪律处分。至关重要的是，如果雇员受雇做出独立的专业判断，对这些判断感到失望，不是因为它们反映了低质量，而是因为它们在政治上或个人上给雇主带来不便，不应被视为基于质量的评估。只有基于质量评估的纪律处分才能免于进一步审查。作为次优但可能更现实的近期替代方案，我还考虑了限制加塞蒂影响力的方法。