Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 39 (1994)

Page:   Index   Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39

Cite as: 511 U. S. 661 (1994)

Stevens, J., dissenting

about putting the risk of error on an employer in these circumstances.6

Government agencies are often the site of sharp differences over a wide range of important public issues. In offices where the First Amendment commands respect for candid deliberation and individual opinion, such disagreements are both inevitable and desirable. When those who work together disagree, reports of speech are often skewed, and supervisors are apt to misconstrue even accurate reports. The plurality, observing that managers "can spend only so much of their time on any one employment decision," ante, at 680, adopts a rule that invites discipline, rather than further discussion, when such disputes arise. That rule is unwise, for deliberation within the government, like deliberation about it, is an essential part of our "profound national commitment" to the freedom of speech. Cf. New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270. A proper regard for that principle requires that, before firing a public employee for her speech, management get its facts straight.

I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

6 Because there is no dispute that Churchill was fired for the content of her speech, this case does not involve the problem of determining whether the public employee would have been terminated anyway for reasons unrelated to speech. See Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274 (1977).

699

Page:   Index   Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39

Last modified: October 4, 2007