Legal Advice on Free Speech

Hmm...does this mean they should not have pulled the rally announcements?

"Government regulation of employee speech does implicate First Amendment issues and is sometimes unconstitutional.  The question usually boils down to the "'balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.'"  Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140 (1983), quoting Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968) (opinion available athttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0461_0138_ZS.html).
  
Courts considering government employee speech issues first ask whether the speech at issue "addressed a matter of public concern."  Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School Dist., 57 Cal. App. 4th 595, 601 (1997) (opinion available at http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/CA4/57CA4t595.htm).  If the speech concerns a matter of public concern, "we must balance [the employee's] interest in making her statement against the interest of the [employer] in '"promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."'"  Id., quoting Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 384-85 (1987) (opinion available athttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0483_0378_ZS.html). 

In other words, employers have some latitude to regulate employee speech, but the degree of latitude depends on the facts of the particular case, with particular focus on the connection between the speech and matters of public interest and the extent to which the regulation might be necessary for the functioning of the government officeinvolved. 

Where the government opens up a limited forum for communication, it must regulate speech made in that forum in a content-neutral way.  Speech should not be restricted by a state actor based on the speaker's viewpoint.  Moreover, restricting speech before it has been made is typically a prior restraint, which is very often inconsistent with theFirst Amendment.  See, e.g., Pines v. Tomson, 160 Cal. App. 3d 370 , 395 (1984) ("Any restraint on expression prior to publication bears 'a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity' under the First Amendment.")."