Free speech and elected positions
<p>Suppose Jack is a student at a public university with a student senate. Senators are paid by the university. The senate elects one of its members to be senate president, and the senate president is paid more than the rest of the senators.  At some point, Jack makes anti-LGBTQ comments in semi-private setting (e.g. group chat for a student organization).</p>
<p>Consider the following hypotheticals:</p>
<p>(1) Jack is running for student senate. Jack makes his comments before the election, and as a result loses.</p>
<p>(2) Jack makes the comments after being elected, as is recalled as a result.</p>
<p>(3)  After being elected to the senate, Jack makes the comments, then runs for senate president, but loses the bid to become president because of the comments.</p>
<p>(4) Jack makes the comments after being elected senate president, and the senators vote to remove him from the office as a result.</p>
<p>In (1), the university is not explicitly giving money on a basis favorable to people who don't express anti-LGBTQ views, but they are offering it in a manner that has a disparate impact on such people. In (4), people acting on the university's behalf are taking a paid position away based on expressing those views. For which of these hypotheticals are Jack's rights being violated?</p>

<h2>None</h2>
<p>The First Amendment says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Jack has exercised his freedom of speech and has not been fined, imprisoned or otherwise punished by law.</p>
<h2>Freedom to speak does not ensure freedom from consequences</h2>
<p>We can use your example of anti-LGBTQ comments or we can substitute any other thing you like: anti-veteran, pro-veteran, anti-Trump, pro-Trump, anti-Ice Hockey, pro-Ice Hockey or, of course, pro-LGBTQ. Jack can say what he likes on any of those subjects and <strong>anybody else can take offence to them and act accordingly</strong>.</p>
<p>In terms of voters in an election - this the ultimately epitome of free speech, they can vote for who they like for whatever reason they like.</p>
<p>In terms of people serving on a board, they voluntarily restrict their freedom to speak because of their duty to the organisation they represent. Whatever their views in private, by agreeing to take on the duty they agree that they will act in accordance with the ethics and ethos of the organisation in public. If they don’t, they can be disciplined; usually for the catch-all offence of bringing the organisation into disrepute. Providing the organisation follows its internally mandated procedures and affords natural justice (I.e. it follows due process), no court will overturn its right to act according to its principals.</p>

united-states freedom-of-speech elections state-university