Connick, 461 U.S. at 145 (internal quotations and citations omitted). `The role that elected officials play in our society makes it all the more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance. Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 782 (2002) (quoting Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 395 (1962)); see also, Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 136-37 (1966) (Legislators have an obligation to take positions on controversial political questions so that their constituents can be fully informed by them, and be better able to assess their qualifications for office; also so they may be represented in governmental debates by the person they have elected to represent them.). Retaliatory conduct is actionable if it is intended to punish the plaintiff for exercising his free speech rights and under the circumstances it would be sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his free speech rights. OConnor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 128 (3d Cir. 2006). The Third Circuit has stated that the threshold for showing First Amendment retaliation is very low and that a cause of action is supplied by all but truly de minimis violations.[15]
Posted on: Sat, 24 May 2014 20:20:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015