Walsh bans city employees from criticizing the Olympics

This crap I don't tolerate..

Do the IOC overlords permit regime change until after the games?

Indeed People ,unless they have been in that particular situation , do not understand that unions restore human dignity back to the worker. I never had a boss that was better than me because he was a boss. I may have had smarter bosses for sure. There are social issues on this site that people seem to get the vapors over , but everyone for the most part seems to hate unions here. America only works when America works, be productive out there ,and respect your tools!

Bonus combo fun pic , America at work , and Hydrogen is our friend,

https://lh5.ggpht.com/_SS_090GhwNYfqHvC8iuNaw0aG_A...

Thus, although the public employer cannot muzzle its employees or penalize them for their expressions and associations to the same extent that a private employer can (the First Amendment, inapplicable to the private employer, is applicable to the public employer),114 the public employer nonetheless has broad leeway in restricting employee speech. If the employee speech does not relate to a matter of “public concern,” then Connick applies and the employer is largely free of constitutional restraint. If the speech does relate to a matter of public concern, then Pickering’s balancing test (as modified by Connick) is employed, the governmental interests in efficiency, workplace harmony, and the satisfactory performance of the employee’s duties115 being balanced against the employee’s First Amendment rights. While the general approach is relatively easy to describe, it has proven difficult to apply.116 The First Amendment, however, does not stand alone in protecting the[p.1090]speech of public employees; statutory protections for “whistleblowers” add to the mix.117

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1cfrag5...

[If any typos, they are mine. I could not copy this from the source I found, so I typed it in here.]

In Section 2.05, the joinder says "The City, including it's employees, officers and representatives, shall not make, publish, or communicate to any Person, or communicate in any public forum, any comments or statements (written or oral), that reflect unfavorably upon, denigrate or disparage, or are detrimental to the reputation or statute of the IOC, the IPC, the USOC, the IOC bid, the bid committee, or the Olympics or Paralympic movement. The City, including it's employees, officers and representatives, shall promote the Bid Committee, the USOC, the IOC bid, U. S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes and hopefuls, and the Olympic and Paralympic movement in a positive manner."

What more info could anyone possibly need? It is, in its entirety, an abridgement of the United States and Massachusetts right of free speech as given in the two Constitutions. Passing it off as "boilerplate" is either disingenuous or wholly deceitful. Any public official who knowingly signed such a document should be not only summarily dismissed from office for his failure to uphold the state Constitution, he should probably be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

If he signed it NOT knowing what that provision said, he should be dopeslapped by every citizen of the city who wishes to avail themselves of the opportunity.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

I worked on Canal Street at the time of the DNC. Nothing like getting tear gassed just trying to go to a sub shop for lunch or having a cigarette break out front.

I can promise this to you personally. Get me an anti-Olympics button and I will wear it, if only in relation to work. Let's see how the IOC or the City takes it.

Let's say someone says something bad about the USOC and it gets to the press. Marty has a decision. He can violate the rejoinder and let the comment stand or he can enforce his part of the rejoinder and crack down on the employee and apologize to the USOC.

If he's not going to enforce the rejoinder, then if the USOC has a problem with that, they'll have to sue Boston. If Marty is going to enforce it and crack down on the staff member, then he's going to have to deal with the inevitable lawsuit from the employee. So, at this point, he's being sued either way. If he's willing to take on the USOC rather than an underling, then that's what he's saying. I'd be surprised if the USOC would sue its designated host city just because no other city would want to work with them for the added risk. So, he's probably made the politically and legally expedient decision.

Unlike you, anon (not verified), I've actually posted my position on this very UHub (the Olympics would be great as long as the taxpayers aren't fleeced in the process).

However, I don't like being told by out of towners to play nice.

You never noticed the Sakladian writing style before.

the IOC would be Kim Jong-Un in this scenario, but you get the point