CA1: jail guard’s internet postings not protected

Curran v. Cousins, No. 07-1686.  Applying Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006), the First finds that the public interest in having a jail guard NOT speak was outweighed by his right to speak.  Cousins, the sheriff was opposed by the union, but was still re-elected.  He promised to "deal with" those who supported his opponent. 

There are many “Nazi” references in the opinion.  My favorite part is how the department had a policy of actually verifying whether a person that called in sick, was sick, by visiting their home. There is also a discussion of various racist postings on the union’s message board. 

Anyway, the First looks at some internet postings and concludes that the electorate might be interested in parts of it.  But not all of it!  Why?  Because parts of it are just insulting or threatening (I have to admit that I saw them as more silly than threatening).  And, there is some language about how “substantial weight” needs to be given to the employer’s “predictions” of harm, even when it is a matter of public concern.

This probably isn’t the best of all opinions since it requires courts to engage in a line-by-line analysis of web-posts to determine whether they are really protected or not, and it seems to defer too much to “law enforcement.”