L. Censorship of Prison Mail
State v. Gillespie, 225 N.J. Super. 435 (Law Div.
1987). Defendant sent a letter addressed to a prison
inmate containing photographs showing a female child
and an adult female in sexually explicit poses. The
envelope was opened by a prison official, who turned the
photographs over to the police. Defendant was
subsequently charged with endangering the welfare of a
child. The Court held that the prison officials’ seizure
of the photographs did not violate defendant’s First
Amendment rights. The Court followed the standards
set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Procunier
v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), which stated that
regulation authorizing mail censorship must (a) further
one or more of the substantial government interests of
security, order and rehabilitation and, (b) limitation of
First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is
necessary or essential to the protection of the
governmental interest involved. Defendant’s First
Amendment rights were not violated because the letter
fell within the definition of contraband, as defined by the
prison manual. In addition, the letter was seized
according to the safeguards contained in the manual,
which protected the seizure of letters from the arbitrary
whim of prison officials.
M. Public Employees - Free Speech in the Workplace
In Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994), a
discharged nurse alleged that her discharge violated First
Amendment. The Supreme Court held that: (1)
government, as employer, has far broader powers in First
Amendment context than does the government of
sovereign; (2) government employee’s speech is treated
differently than private person’s speech with regard to
substance and procedural requirements; (3) before
government employer can discharge employee for
unprotected speech, it must undertake reasonable
investigation to determine what the speech actually was
and must in good faith believe the facts on which it
purports to act; (4) hospital had undertaken adequate
investigation; (5) nurse’s speech as believed by hospital
officials was not protected; and (6) genuine issue of fact
existed as to the motivation of the hospital officials.
In Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62
(1990), former and present low-level public employees
and employment applicant brought action challenging
Governor’s use of political considerations in hiring,
rehiring, transferring, and promoting. The Supreme
Court held that: (1) promotions, transfers, and recalls
based on political affiliation or support are impermissible
infringements on public employees’ First Amendment
rights; and (2) conditioning hiring decisions on political
belief and association violates applicants’ First
Amendment rights in the absence of a vital government
interest.Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987).
Respondent, a clerk in a county constable’s office, was
discharged after a supervisor overheard respondent’s
remark, in reaction to a news report that an attempt had
been made to assassinate the President of the United
States, “If they go for him again, I hope they get him.”
The United States Supreme Court held that respondent’s
discharge violated her First Amendment right to freedom
of expression. The issue of public employee free speech
requires a balance between the interest of the employee,
as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern,
and the interest of the public employer in promoting the
efficiency of the public services it performs through its
employees. Respondent’s interest in exercising her First
Amendment rights outweighed the constable’s interest
in discharging her because (a) the remark was related to
a matter of public concern, expressing matters of the
President’s policies; (b) there was no indication that the
remarks interfered with the functioning of the constable’s
office; (c) the remark was made in a private conversation;
and (d) the employee served no public or policy making
role; therefore, her private remarks had a minimal effect
on the constable’s function.Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548
(1973). Civil servants can constitutionally be forced to
choose between their jobs and engaging in partisan
political activities, since there is a very strong government
interest in making sure that civil servants can do their jobs
without being coerced into campaigning for or
contributing to their elected bosses.Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, 518 U.S.
668 (1996). Following nonrenewal of his trash hauling
contract with county, independent contractor brought §
1983 action against two members of Board of County
Commissioners, alleging that they had terminated his
government contract in retaliation for his criticism of
county and board. The Supreme Court held that First
Amendment protects independent contractors from
termination or prevention of automatic renewal of at-will
government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of
freedom of speech.O’Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518
U.S. 712 (1996). Private towing service brought § 1983
action against city, challenging its removal from city’s