The First Amendment protects the accountant’s speech. The first amendment provides for the protection of freedom of speech, press, and religion for U.S citizens (History.com Editors, 2020). The First Amendment also provides that the U.S. Citizens are entitled to the right of peaceful demonstrations and the right to petition the government. In addition, the U.S. government restricts Congress from hindering the rights of people towards speaking freely. As such, the accountant in the Sherriff’s office has the right to speak to the local newspaper about the Sherriff’s actions. Furthermore, according to the Fourth Amendment’s provision of freedom of speech, the accountant is free to express her sentiments to the local newspaper. Therefore, the Sherriff’s claims that the First Amendment does not protect the accountant are only a result of ignorance of the provisions of the constitution.
In responding to this question comprehensively, I will use supporting evidence from this week’s readings. The readings contain more insight into the officer’s right to the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and the right to association. I will discuss some aspects of the readings in this assignment in defense of the accountant’s speech. First, we look at the various sources of the constitutional right to privacy. In this case, the accountant has the right to privacy; the right to express her speech without having her privacy invaded. The U.S. Supreme Court infers to the right to privacy in its first to fifth amendments, and in its ninth amendment (Aitchison, 2015, Chapter 8, slide 1). The sheriff’s argument that the First Amendment does not protect the accountant in speaking about the Sherriff’s action to misuse the agency’s funds is faulty.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Furthermore, the Sherriff’s claim that the evidence that the accountant provided was related to his job-related duties is faulty. This is because the accountant is protected by the provision of an individual’s entitlement to the right of speech in matters of public interest (Aitchison, 2015, Chapter 9, slide 11). In this case, the accountant speaks as a citizen in a matter that is of public interest. Her speech is, therefore, protected under the category of “criticism of the Sherrif” (Aitchison, 2015, Chapter 9, slide 11).
One aspect, however, that I found to be of particular interest is the ‘Other off-duty Conduct’ provision that is found in Chapter 8, slide 35 of this week’s readings. The clause states that “an officer’s off-work actions are covered as long as those off-duty actions do not conflict with the officer’s job” (Aitchison, 2015, Chapter 8, slide 35). In this case, the Sherriff’s action of taking his family on vacation is, of course, off-duty. However, the problem is that the Sherriff used the agency’s money to organize for a family vacation. Therefore, the officer’s off duty actions in this scenario have some adverse effects on the Sherriff’s job. The officer’s action is what can be termed as embezzlement of public funds. This provision in the constitution, therefore, provides undeniable proof that the Sherriff’s claims are faulty, and that the First Amendment indeed covers the accountant’s speech. The First Amendment does not cover such actions as carrying out personal actions that create adverse effects on the officer’s job. Therefore, the accountant’s speech is protected by the provisions of the First Amendment, assuming that the accountant speaks as a citizen.
A critical thinking question that I can pose to my classmates is whether or not the accountant spoke as a citizen, and whether the accountant’s speech can be classified as criticism against the Sherriff or not.
References
Aitchison, W. (2015). The rights of law enforcement officers (7th edition). LRIS Publications.
History.com Editors (2019, September 25). First amendment. A&E Television Networks . https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/first-amendment
