Connick Case

2. Content is a Matter of Public Concern In Connick, the court states that “[s]peech involves a matter of ‘public concern’ when it can fairly be considered to relate to 'any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.' The ‘essential question is whether the speech addressed matters of public as opposed to personal interest.’” Connick, 461 U.S. 138 at 147. Furthermore, “[w]hen employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment.” Id, 461 U.S. 138 at 147. In the case of Connick, the court found

Id, 461 U.S. 138. Contrarily, Dr. Foster sought to inspire public debate about the issue of whether doctors overuse of medicine over a myopic focus for epileptic cases. (Complaint, R. 5, para. 11). However, we run into a problematic issue when we look to the circulation of the blog. The court in Demers state that if the issue is that of little dispute outside of a small bureaucratic niche, then it is unlikely to be seen as a “public concern,” but such a narrowing isn’t determinative. Demers, 729 F.3d 1011. However, as seen in the reasoning in Demers, the fact that the blog was posted onto a public website for there world to see, rather than just a small niche, while no dispositive makes it more likely that the issue was a matter of "public concern.” Id, 729 F.3d 1011. Furthermore, the fact that the blog post was given notoriety on a public news website, elevating his low traffic blog into a website with over 50,000 views, coupled with debate as to the praise or dissent of the idea, makes this even more likely to be a matter of public concern. (Complaint, R. 6, para. 16). The theory posted in the blog was made available to more than just an office of people at which he works, as seen in Connick.

Id, 461 U.S. 138. As we have already established, the context of the speech was made upon a public blog to the public at large, rather than a private group such as office coworkers. (Complaint, R. 6, para. 15). (Complaint, R. 6, para. 17). Furthermore, the speech was made on a blog that had no relationship to his “official duties.” The blog was a personal blog, made by Dr. Foster himself, not used or monitored by Hamilton University nor used in the ordinary course of his profession as a teacher, and wherein he posted information beyond that of the mere academic. (Complaint, R. 5, para. 10). Furthermore, while the district court makes the argument that due to the fact that debate is an “official duty” that is ordinarily “pursuant to” his profession, debate is also an aspect of being a citizen. Garcetti, 547 U.S. 410 at 421. It could hardly be said that since a lawyer’s job is to argue the law, it would thus be true that every time he has an argument about the law he is acting “pursuant to his official duties” of his profession, and the same cant be said to be true here. Garcetti, 547 U.S. 410 at