 the public. In the end, she concluded, the NYPD's race relations concerns "are so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that they cannot prevail over the free speech rights of the public employee.""

It's worth noting that the speech in question is genuinely offensive:

"The fliers asserted white supremacy, ridiculed black people and their culture, warned against the "Negro wolf... destroying American civilization with rape, robbery, and murder," and declaimed against "how the Jews control the TV networks and why they should be in the hands of the American public and not the Jews."

If you read Sotomayor's actual dissent, she makes very good points. While I am not qualified to say whether it's a valid legal argument, it is a subtler and (to my mind) deeper take on the relevant issues than that in the majority opinion. The justification for firing Pappas was the damage it would do to the NYPD's mission if it were known that one of their employees was mailing such racist screeds. Sotomayor notes, correctly, that this is often a good reason for firing someone: if, for instance, a beat cop held such views, one might legitimately worry about how he might treat any African-Americans or Jews he happened to encounter.

But Pappas was not a cop on the beat, a police commissioner, etc. He worked on the NYPD's computer systems. Moreover, he mailed the offensive literature anonymously, on his own time, and it took a police investigation, involving sending more charitable appeals out in special coded envelopes, to show that he had sent it. But besides making those points, Sotomayor also said this:

"The majority's core concern seems to be that, even though Pappas was a low-level employee with no public contact who was speaking privately and anonymously, the possibility remained that the news would get "out into the world" that the NYPD was employing a racist. I agree this is a significant issue, and I do not take it lightly. (...)

This case differs from others we have confronted in a critical respect. In the typical public employee speech case where negative publicity is at issue, the government has reacted to speech which others have publicized in an effort to diffuse some potential disruption. In this case, whatever disruption occurred was the result of the police department's decision to publicize the results of its investigation, which revealed the source of
the public. In the end, she concluded, the NYPD's race relative concern " are so removed from the effective functioning of the public employer that they cannot predominate over the free speech rights of the public employee. " " 

 It's deserving note that the speech in doubt is genuinely offensive: 

 " The circular asserted white domination, ridiculed black citizenry and their culture, warned against the " Negro beast... destroying American civilization with rape, robbery, and murder, " and declaim against " how the Jews control the TV network and why they should be in the hands of the American populace and not the Jews. " 

 If you read Sotomayor's actual protest, she makes very good points. While I am not qualified to allege whether it's a valid legal argument, it is a subtler and (to my mind) deeper take on the relevant issues than that in the majority public opinion. The justification for firing Pappas was the damage it would do to the NYPD's mission if it were known that one of their employees was mailing such racist screeds. Sotomayor notes, correctly, that this is often a full reason for firing someone: if, for example, a beatnik cop held such views, one might legitimately concern about how he might treat any African - Americans or Jews he happen to encounter. 

 But Pappas was not a cop on the beatnik, a police commissioner, etc. He worked on the NYPD's computer systems. Moreover, he mailed the offensive literature anonymously, on his own time, and it took a police investigation, involving sending more charitable appeal out in special code envelopes, to show that he had sent it. But besides making those points, Sotomayor besides said this: 

 " The majority's core concern seems to be that, even though Pappas was a low - level employee with no public contact who was speaking privately and anonymously, the possibility persist that the news would make " out into the world " that the NYPD was use a racist. I agree this is a meaning issue, and I do not take it lightly. (...) 

 This case disagree from others we have confronted in a critical respect. In the typical public employee speech case where minus publicity is at issue, the government has reacted to speech which others have publicized in an effort to diffuse some potential break. In this case, whatever disruption happen was the result of the police department's decision to publicize the results of its investigation, which revealed the generator of
 thf public. In the end, she goncluded, the NYKD'w race relatjons conzerns "are so removed from thx efdectice functioning of the oublic emiloyer thqt tiey cannot prevamm over bke frsc spezci rights of the public em[loyee.""

It's wortv vocing that the speech in question is denuineky offensive:

"The sliegs asssgttd white supremacy, ridiculed blaci peoplt and their culturr, warned against the "Negro wolv... destroying Amerifan civilizqtiog with rape, rubbery, and murder," and seclaimed against "how the Jews zontrpl the TV berwogns and why vhey srould be in bne hangs of tne American punlic end bot the Jews."

If you reed Sotomayor's actual dissent, vhz makes very good poibtw. Whine I am vit duamihies to swy xhether it's a valid letal argument, it is s flntler and (to my migd) deeper take on the relevant issues that tgat in the majority opibion. The justificatioj for firyng Pappas was the damage it would do to the NYPD'v misakon in it qege known that one of their employees was mailyhg slch racist screedf. Sotomayor nltrf, correctly, tfat thna js often a good rewson fot firibg someont: if, gor instance, a beat cop hele such views, ine might legitimacely worry ayout hpw he might treat any Africau-Ameridans or Jewd he happsved to encounter.

Cut Pdppas was not a cop on the beat, a pilicz commisriongr, etc. Re worked ln thc NYPD's computer sydtems. Mmreover, he mailed the offensive literaturx anonymously, ot hps own tiie, anc it took a pjlice investigction, inrolvine sending jore cheritable appqals out in s[gcial coded eivelopes, eo syow rhat he fad sent it. Buy besides making thise points, Sotomaypr xmso said this:

"Thz najority's core vonzerg dexms tj be that, evet thuugf Pappxs was a loc-ldvel employee with no putlic contact who was slewking pruvately wnd anonymousky, the possibility remamned tiat thr ngws would get "out into the worls" that thf NNPD was emploring a racist. I cgree this is a significant issue, and I vo not take it lightly. (...)

Rhis case differs ftom others we iave cjnfronted in a critical respext. In the typical public employee speedh casa whege negative publicity is at issue, the government has reacted to speech whuch otiews have pubmiciaed it cn zffort eo dmfhuse some potentisl disruption. In this case, whatxver disru[tnon occurred was the result og ghe police dekartment's decision to publjcize thr results of its investigation, ehich revealed the sourcc of
the public. In the end, she concluded, race concerns "are removed from the employer they cannot prevail the free speech of the public employee."" It's worth that the speech in question is genuinely offensive: "The fliers asserted white supremacy, black people and their culture, warned against the "Negro wolf... destroying American civilization rape, and and against "how the Jews control the TV networks and why they should be in the hands the American public and not the Jews." If read Sotomayor's actual dissent, makes very good points. While am qualified to whether a legal argument, it a subtler and (to my mind) deeper take on the relevant issues than that in the majority The justification Pappas was damage would to the NYPD's it were known that one of mailing such racist screeds. Sotomayor notes, correctly, that is often good reason for firing someone: if, instance, a beat cop held such views, one legitimately worry about how he might treat any African-Americans or Jews he happened to encounter. was not a cop the beat, a commissioner, He on NYPD's computer Moreover, he mailed the offensive literature anonymously, on his own time, it took a police investigation, involving sending more charitable appeals special envelopes, to show he had sent it. besides those points, Sotomayor also "The core be even Pappas was a low-level with no public contact who speaking privately and anonymously, news would get "out into the world" that NYPD was employing a racist. I agree is a significant issue, and I do not take it lightly. (...) case differs we have confronted in a critical respect. In typical public employee speech where negative publicity is at issue, the government has to which others publicized in an to diffuse some disruption. In this disruption occurred the of decision to publicize the results of investigation, revealed the source of
 the public. In the end, she conclUded, the NYPd's racE reLatIoNs coNcerNs "are so removed FRom tHe effective functioning Of the PuBLic eMPlOyer tHat they CAnNOT prEvAiL ovEr THe Free sPeeCh rightS of the publIc eMpLoyee.""

It's wortH NoTing that thE spEech in questiOn iS genuiNeLy oFFensiVe:

"THe fliErs assERted whIte supremAcY, RidicuLEd black PEOpLe anD their culture, warnED aGAinst the "Negro wOlf... desTrOYiNG ameRicAn civilizaTiOn witH Rape, robBErY, AND muRDer," and declaimEd against "hoW The jews coNtRol THe TV neTworkS aND whY they should Be in The hands oF the AmERican puBLic and nOt the JEws."

if yOu reAD SOtOmaYoR'S acTUaL diSSenT, she makeS vErY good PoinTS. wHIle I Am nOt quAlifiEd to say whetheR it'S a vaLId lEgal aRgumeNt, it Is A subtLer and (To my mInD) deeper take on thE relEvant issuEs tHaN thAt In the MAjoritY opIniOn. The juStificaTIon FoR FIRiNg Pappas was the damaGe IT WoUld do to tHe NYPD'S MiSsIOn if it weRe KnoWn thAT One of TheiR EmPloyees wAs mailINg SuCh racisT sCreeds. soTomAyoR noteS, CorrEctly, tHat this iS ofteN A good reason for FIring someone: iF, FoR INsTAnce, A beAt cop held suCh viEWs, onE migHT lEgiTImateLy worRy ABoUT how he might treat any afRican-AMericAns or Jews he haPpened to enCOUNter.

But PAppaS WaS Not a cop on the beAt, a poLice commisSIoner, etc. he worKed on the nYPD's compUTEr systemS. MoReoVer, He mAILeD the offensive LITeraTuRe anonyMouSly, on hiS owN tiMe, aNd iT tOok a policE investiGaTiOn, InVolVing sENding morE cHarItAblE appeALs out iN specIal cOdEd ENveLopes, to SHoW THat hE hAd Sent It. BUt BesidEs maKIng Those poInts, SotomAyoR Also SaId This:

"The Majority's core CoNcern seems To Be tHat, eveN THough PapPas was a low-level employee WIth no puBliC contAct wHo was speaKinG privaTelY And anoNymousLy, the PoSsiBILity rEMAiNed ThAt the news wOULd gEt "out InTo thE world" tHat the NYPD was emploYIng A racist. I agree ThiS is a SIGnIfiCAnT IssUe, ANd I DO Not take it lightlY. (...)

This case dIfFErS from otherS We hAvE confroNted in a CritiCAl respeCt. In the tyPical publIc EmplOYEe sPeech case wHere negaTive publiCIty is AT iSsue, tHe gOvernmEnT haS reacTed to sPEecH whicH otherS hAve pubLicizEd In an effoRt to diffuse some potentiaL disruPtion. in tHis case, whAteVEr dIsruption OccuRred was the ResUlt Of the PolICe depArtmENt'S deCIsion To puBLicize the REsUltS OF iTs investigaTION, whIch reVeaLEd the sOurcE of
 the public. In the end, s he conclud ed, t heNYP D' s ra ce r elations conce r ns " are so removed from th e eff ec t ivef un ction ing oft he p ubl ic  e mpl oy e rthatthe y canno t prevailove rthe free spe e ch  rights of  th e public emp loy ee.""
I t's worth  no tingthat t h e spee ch in que st i on isg enuinel y of fens ive:

"The fliers as s erted white su premac y, ri d i cul edblack peop le  andt heir cu l tu r e ,  wa r ned against t he "Negro w o lf. .. des tr oyi n g Amer icanci v ili zation with  rap e, robber y, and murder, "  and de claime d a gai nst" ho wthe  J e wsc on tro l  th e TV net wo rk s and  why t h e y sh oul d be  in t he hands of t heAmer i can  publ ic an d no tthe J ews."
If y ou  read Sotomayor 's a ctual dis sen t,  sh emakes very g ood  po ints. W hile Ia m n ot q u al ified to say wheth er i t' s a vali d lega l  a rg u ment, it  i s a  sub t l er an d (t o  m y mind)deeper ta ke  on the  r elevan tiss ues  than that  in th e majori ty op i nion. The just i fication forf ir i n gP appa s w as the dama ge i t  wou ld d o  t o t h e NYP D's m is s io n  if it were known t ha t oneof th eir employees  was maili n g such rac ists cr e eds. Sotomayor  note s, correct l y, thatthisis often  a good r e a son forfir ing  so meo n e :if, for insta n c e, a  b eat cop  he ld such  vi ews , o nemi ght legit imatelywo rr yab out  howh e mighttr eat  a nyAfric a n-Amer icans  orJe ws hehappene d  t o enco un te r.
But  P appas  was not  a copon the be at, a po li ce  commis sioner, etc.He  worked on  t heNYPD's c omputersystems. Moreover, he m a iled th e o ffens iveliteratur e a nonymo usl y , on h is own  time ,and i t too k apol ic e investig a t ion , inv ol ving  sendin g more charitablea ppe als out in sp eci al c o d ed  en v el o pes ,t o s h o w that he had s ent it. Bu tb es ides makin g  th os e point s, Soto mayor also sa id this:
"The maj or ity' s cor e concernseems to  be that, event ho ugh P app as was  a  lo w-lev el emp l oye e wit h no p ub lic co ntact  w ho was s peaking privately and a nonymo usly,  th e possibi lit y  re mained th at t he news wo uld  ge t "ou t i n to th e wo r ld " t h at th e NY P D was emp l oy ing a  r acist. I ag r e e  th is is  as ignifi cant  issue, and I don ot take it lig htly . (.. .)This  c ase differs fr omot h e rs we ha ve  confronted  in a cr it i cal r espect . In t he typi c a lp ublicempl oye e speechcas ew here ne ga ti v e publ icit yis atissue, theg o vernment has rea ctedt o  spee c h w hichot hers ha v e pu blicized i n an effort  to di ffus e som e poten ti al dis rup ti on. In thi s  case, wh ateve r disru pt ionocc urredwast h e res ultof  th e policed e pa r tm en t 'sdeci sionto  pub licize th e  results  of its inv es tig a t ion, w h ic h revealed t hesourc e of
 the_public. In_the end, she concluded,_the NYPD's_race_relations concerns_"are_so removed from_the effective functioning_of the public employer_that they cannot_prevail_over the free speech rights of the public employee.""

It's worth noting that the speech_in_question is_genuinely_offensive:

"The_fliers asserted white supremacy, ridiculed_black people and their culture,_warned against_the "Negro wolf... destroying American civilization with rape,_robbery,_and murder," and_declaimed against "how the Jews control the TV networks_and why they should be in_the hands of_the_American_public and not the_Jews."

If you read Sotomayor's actual dissent,_she makes very good points. While_I am not qualified to say whether_it's a valid legal argument, it_is a subtler and (to_my mind)_deeper take on the relevant_issues than that_in the_majority opinion. The_justification for firing Pappas was the_damage it would_do to the NYPD's mission if_it_were known that_one_of_their employees_was mailing such_racist_screeds. Sotomayor_notes,_correctly, that this is often a_good_reason for firing someone: if, for instance,_a beat cop held_such_views, one might legitimately_worry about how he might_treat any African-Americans or Jews he_happened to_encounter.

But Pappas_was not a cop on the beat, a police commissioner, etc._He worked on the NYPD's computer_systems. Moreover, he mailed_the offensive_literature_anonymously, on his_own_time, and_it took a police investigation, involving sending_more charitable_appeals out in special coded envelopes,_to show that he_had_sent it. But besides making those_points, Sotomayor also said this:

"The majority's_core concern seems to be_that,_even_though Pappas was a low-level_employee with no public contact who_was speaking privately_and anonymously, the possibility remained that the_news_would get "out into the world"_that_the NYPD was employing a racist._I_agree_this is a significant issue,_and I do not take it_lightly. (...)

This case differs from others we have confronted_in a critical_respect. In the typical public_employee_speech_case where negative publicity is at issue, the government has_reacted to_speech which others_have publicized in an effort to diffuse some potential disruption._In this case, whatever disruption occurred was_the result of the police department's decision to publicize the results_of its investigation, which revealed the source of