Australia's High Court upholds dismissal of public servant over tweets in landmark free speech ruling

Australia does not have a First Amendment so the courts recognize only a limited right to free speech.  And in any jurisdiction, a government is entitled to impose restrictions on an employee as a condition of employment.  If you don't like the restrictions, get another job.  The High Court has ruled that no conception of free speech over-rules the Australian government's right to require certain things of an employee as a condition of employment


The High Court has upheld the sacking of a public servant who used a pseudonym to criticise government immigration policy on Twitter.

The High Court’s seven judges unanimously overturned a lower court’s decision that Michaela Banerji’s dismissal was not reasonable and that public service rules around the use of social media and making public comment “unacceptably trespassed on the implied freedom of political communication”.

The Community and Public Sector Union, which represents public servants, said the decision had serious implications for free speech and could potentially affect almost two million Australians who work for the federal, state and local governments.

Banerji used the Twitter handle “LaLegale” to send more than 9000 tweets in six years while she was employed by what was then called the Department of Immigration and Border Protection from 2006 and 2012.

The tweets were often critical of government policies, such as banishing refugees who attempt to reach Australia by boat to camps on the poor Pacific island nations of Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

A department investigation discovered that Banerji was behind the tweets and had breached the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, which demands civil servants appear to be politically impartial. Her job was terminated in September 2013.

The next month, she lodged a claim for workers’ compensation for a post-traumatic stress disorder that she blamed on her termination. The claim was refused because her termination was deemed a “reasonable administrative action”.

Banerji appealed that decision in a public service court known as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, arguing that her tweets were “entirely anonymous”, did not disclose departmental information, were sent from her personal phone and outside office hours.

The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. But the High Court has previously ruled that an implied freedom of political communication exists in Australia because that is essential in a democracy. The tribunal upheld her appeal and her right to political communication, but the High Court decision rules out the prospect of compensation.

SOURCE