The "Public Safety Free Speech Act" protects the rights of law enforcement, firefighters, and EMS providers to express their personal opinions on public safety matters without fear of employer retaliation, provided such expression does not occur while on duty, incite violence, or disclose confidential information.
Eric Schmitt
Senator
MO
The Public Safety Free Speech Act protects the free speech rights of law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical service providers. It allows these employees to sue their employers if they face retaliation for expressing personal opinions on matters of public concern, with certain exceptions for comments made while on duty or those that incite violence or discrimination. This act ensures that public safety employees can voice their opinions without fear of reprisal, while also respecting the need for professional conduct and confidentiality. The bill does not override existing federal or state laws that protect against the deprivation of rights under the law.
Public Safety Free Speech Act: Cops, Firefighters Could Sue Over Off-Duty Opinions Under Proposed Bill
A new proposal, the 'Public Safety Free Speech Act,' aims to give certain public safety workers legal grounds to sue their employers if they face discipline for expressing personal opinions outside of work. This specifically covers qualified law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical service providers, and federal firefighters. If enacted, Section 3 would allow these employees to take legal action if terminated or facing other 'adverse actions' for sharing views on topics like public safety services, pay, working conditions, employer policies, job requirements, or even political and religious beliefs.
Speaking Your Mind Off the Clock
So, what kind of speech gets protection? We're talking about personal opinions expressed verbally or in writing when the employee is not on duty. Think about a police officer posting on their personal social media about staffing levels, or an EMT writing a letter to the editor about response times. Section 3 lists specific protected areas: critiques of public safety services, discussions about compensation or working conditions, opinions on employer policies or job requirements, and expressions of political or religious views. If an employee successfully argues their rights were violated under this act, they could potentially receive damages, get their job back via injunctive relief, and have their attorney's fees covered.
Drawing the Line: What's Not Covered
This isn't a free-for-all, though. The bill explicitly carves out several exceptions in Section 3. Protection doesn't apply if the comments are made while the employee is on duty. It also excludes speech that encourages violence or illegal actions, advocates for discrimination based on protected characteristics, discloses confidential information learned on the job, or suggests withholding essential services (like a strike). These exceptions try to balance free speech with the responsibilities inherent in public safety roles. The bill defines 'employer' broadly, including various government agencies and departments that employ these 'covered employees'.
The Real-World Ripple Effect: Lawsuits and Agency Impact
Here's where it gets practical. Creating a new 'cause of action' (Section 3) means agencies could face more lawsuits from employees claiming retaliation for off-duty speech. While this empowers employees to voice concerns, it could also make employers hesitant. What counts as an 'adverse action'? The bill doesn't spell this out exhaustively, which might lead to disputes. Public employers – police departments, fire stations, EMS agencies – might face increased legal costs, potentially passed on to taxpayers. There's also the question of how this interacts with existing department policies on conduct and social media. While aiming to protect speech, the bill could inadvertently make managing personnel and maintaining discipline more complex for public safety agencies.