# Chalk Appeal

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 7, 1971 · 441 Pa. 376

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756449

## Case

- **Full name:** Chalk Appeal
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 7, 1971
- **Citations:** 441 Pa. 376; 272 A.2d 457; 1971 Pa. LEXIS 1127
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bell
- **Judges:** Bell, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Bbien, Roberts, Pomeroy
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756449

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell :
I vigorously dissent. The Majority stretch the Constitutional right of “freedom of speech” to a point where a Governmental employee, by his public attacks, may hold his Department up to such public ridicule and contempt as to jeopardize its efficient administration, and indeed its very existence. Both our Court and the Supreme Court of the United States have often said that “freedom of speech” is not absolute or unlimited. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 ; Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 ; Andress v. Zoning Board of Adjust, 410 Pa. 77, 188 A. 2d 709 ; Taylor and Selby Appeals, 412 Pa. 32 , 193 A. 2d 181 , and a dozen cases cited therein.
*386 The public exhortations of this Public Assistance Department employee urging public assistance recipients “to get on caseworkers’ backs and demand their rights”, and further exhorting them to “agitate, agitate, agitate”, passes far beyond the protection of the First Amendment. If the Majority’s “near-absolute freedom-of-speech approach” be carried to its logical conclusion, it could conceivably create such lack of public confidence in one or more Departments and such bitter resentments and divisions as to not only (I repeat) greatly impair the efficiency and existence of that Department (or Departments), but also could jeopardize the effective operation and functioning of our entire Government. An employee of the Commonwealth, working in a sensitive area of the business of his Governmental Department, is—and quite properly should be —subject to much greater restriction, in regard to (legislatively unsolicited) criticism of the Department which he purports to be serving, than a person who has no connection therewith. Cf. Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 . Indeed, even an ordinary business employee owes a certain amount of loyalty to his employer, and if the employee publicly attacks, ridicules or undermines his employer or his policies, he should be, and usually is, subject to dismissal or appropriate punishment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756449. Public record. Not legal advice.