摘要：In 2006, Garcetti v. Ceballos1 introduced a new refinement to analysis of government employee speech rights. Prior to that decision, an employee’s claim that termination or other job-related sanction infringed her First Amendment rights was governed by what was frequently called the Connick-Pickering analysis.2 If the employee’s speech was on a matter of private concern, then it was unprotected. If it was on a matter of public concern—a category whose contours have remained vague3—it could be the basis for punishment only if the employer’s interest in governmental efficiency outweighed the individual’s interest in speech.4 Garcetti added a new threshold inquiry. First Amendment protection attaches, the Court said, only when employees speak “as citizens,” and not when they speak “pursuant to their official duties.”United
