You may or may not be aware of a little controversy in Jacksonville FL recently.
This article summarized it nicely, and rather than do so here, I trust you will get the gist quickly.
The citation was probably accurate under the city code as written, wrongheaded, and it looks like that rule has been amended to allow for military flags. But honestly, that wasn't particularly shocking to me, being just a poorly written and overly non-specific rule. The code enforcer's treatment of a veteran in the store (not the business owner being cited, but just a customer who happened to be in the store)
was outrageous, and while it crossed the line, that's not actually so much what I want to talk about.
Instead, it got me thinking. This woman is a city employee. A government official. Can the government fire her for being rude?
Should the government be able to fire an employee for stating an unpopular opinion? I go back and forth on this. Sure, if she were a private employee, her employer could toss her out the door for bringing controversy to the business. But the government is bound by the First Amendment in a way that private businesses are not.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there is not some rule or regulation about representing the city in a negative light, or perhaps mistreatment of the public as being a fireable offense, and if such a rule exists, and it was a condition of her employment, controversy over... mostly. If there is no such rule, then I don't know that she can legally be fired for being rude to a veteran. And I don't know if she ought to be.
I
am a veteran. I can hardly think of a more grave insult you can pay to a wounded vet that "you did nothing for this country" (which is what was originally reported, but I will accept the article's interpretation that she actually said what the vet did overseas does not matter [in the context of the citation]). But insults still are protected speech. Oh, one may face social opprobrium for saying such a thing. One may be ostracized and publicly shamed, and rightfully so. But the government
cannot punish someone for expressing an opinion, regardless of how unpopular it may be. They are prohibited from doing so, and should be prohibited from doing so. And I don't know that I want the government to start getting into the business of deciding what speech is protected, and what is not. Because that is a VERY short slope towards the modern leftist desire to label all speech they do not like as unprotected "hate speech", and then using that to legally ban such speech.