WASHINGTON ?? Government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment, several Supreme Court justices suggested Monday. <\/p>\n
During oral arguments in a freedom-of-speech case out of Alabama, several justices challenged the notion that public employees who testify truthfully about an issue of significant public concern aren't shielded from retaliation by the First Amendment. <\/p>\n
\"What kind of message are we giving when we're telling employees, you're subpoenaed in a trial, go and tell a falsehood because otherwise you can be fired?\" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked attorneys in the case. <\/p>\n
The Fifth Amendment protects state employees against self-incrimination on the witness stand, but \"it doesn't protect the department he works for from being incriminated,\" Chief Justice John Roberts said. <\/p>\n
The case involves an employee at Central Alabama Community College whose testimony helped convict former Alabama state Rep. Sue Schmitz of corruption-related charges. The employee, Edward Lane of Ashville, was fired after he testified at Schmitz's first trial in 2008. <\/p>\n
Before Lane gets a chance to prove in court his firing was retaliatory, the Supreme Court must decide if his testimony is protected speech under the First Amendment. <\/p>\n
Lane, who attended Monday's arguments, was surprised that's even in doubt. <\/p>\n
\"I thought for sure that being able to go testify truthfully in court that I should be protected,\" he said in an interview on the Supreme Court steps after Monday's arguments. \"And to find out (the other side) actually thinks that is not the case - that just blows me over.\" <\/p>\n
Steve Franks, former president of the two-year college, says Lane's testimony wasn't protected by the First Amendment. His attorney, Mark Waggoner of Birmingham, argued Monday that Lane's testimony was based on information he gleaned only from his job and that he was testifying as a state employee, not a regular citizen. <\/p>\n
\"If the testimony is factual, based solely on the job duties, as it was here, inseparable from the job duties, and it is information that a citizen would not know, that only the testifier would know, then that is not protected speech,\" Waggoner told the justices. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Continue reading here: <\/p>\n
Justices suggest public employees' testimony is protected<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" WASHINGTON ?? Government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment, several Supreme Court justices suggested Monday. During oral arguments in a freedom-of-speech case out of Alabama, several justices challenged the notion that public employees who testify truthfully about an issue of significant public concern aren't shielded from retaliation by the First Amendment. Continue reading