Alexander Smith’s PowerPoint presentation doesn’t appear designed to court controversy. The slides, focused on declining maternal health in Gaza, cite public health data from the United Nations and World Health Organization. His employer, the U.S. Agency for International Development, had selected him to share it at the government agency’s Global Gender Equality Conference.
But just before the conference, an issue of contention emerged.
A single slide mentioned international humanitarian law in context of the health crisis in Gaza. USAID staff cited the slide and discussion of international law as potential fodder for leaks, documents and emails Smith shared with The Intercept show. Despite Smith’s willingness to make revisions, his presentation was eventually canceled. On the last day of the conference, he found himself out of a job.
“I thought it is really obscene that misinformation can go out freely out into the world [about Gaza], but I can’t talk about the reality of starving pregnant women,” said Smith, who worked as a contracted senior adviser at USAID on gender and material health. “We can’t even whisper about that in a conference on that topic.”
No, it’s not, the governemnt can censor its own workers or speech that its workers make. The government can censor itself.
He didn’t even make the speech. Nothing he did could be considered misconduct or insubordination.
A government employee will be censored for the speech that that employee puts out, full stop.
Same way as if that employee put out a hate filled speech about gay people.
True, but in this case he hadn’t even put it out at all yet.
Did you even read my comment?
Aside from the correctness of the ruling or this situation. I’m guessing if Citizens United ruled ‘money equals speech’, then making/distributing a powerpoint probably also will be categorized as ‘speech’.
So Americans only have free speech when the government says it’s ok?
I’m mean, I know freedom of speech is a narrower concept than most people realize but if the government can retaliate against you because you would share factual evidence as part of your job, then you guys really don’t have freedom of speech
I mean, I guess you guys beat North Korea in this topic and … That’s about it
It’s more like when you work for the government, you’re allowed to say what in a personal context. Once you start throwing around a title linked to the government, you’re no longer speaking as yourself, youre speaking as the government. The government can tell you what the government is allowed to say.
It’s the difference between an employee of the coast guard joining Greenpeace vs. That employee publicly saying the United States Coast Guard is joining Greenpeace. The coast guard can’t fire an employee for their own political beliefs, but they can totally fire a guy for saying shit the coast guard doesn’t want while representing the coast guard. Public speaking and seminars and shit like this have explicit rules about who can say what and when as a government employee in an official capacity.
Free Speech™*
*(Available only for the bourgeoisie ruling class. Terms and conditions may apply)
The US government can not censor speech for private citizens except in extremely limited terms.
This is a government employee communicating on behalf of the government. The government has every right to censor the speech that it puts out.
Also, for what it’s worth, the US has much stronger free speech protections than the EU. Whether or not that’s a good thing is up for debate.
deleted by creator
It’s a violation of free speech, it’s just not a violation of US law. Free speech is not the first amendment.