didn't you focus more on the news media problems that came up afterwards as opposed to the plot doesn't it isn't that much more a matter of public concern than a blog i think what we do focus on both sides focus on the and a lot of other complaints about students you know maybe complain about the generation of students who knows but when you go on television it would seem that say hey wait a minute this is a matter of very significant public concern the question is what can a teacher do it her private time etc etc and that would seem to be because especially because you run you know you know with good morning america because if that is a that's not just local public and that's national public concern why we're focused on that as opposed to having to play a defensive game as to whether these drugs actually dealt with court opinion in a very comprehensive opinion otherwise that the only time that i really saw this dealt with substantively was in but no sixty five said well it was dealing with the news media coverage of soccer i would rule the was actually due to go out on maternity leave at any time anyway but you got the superintendent you know between the eleventh and the seventeenth of three occasions specially say were you to t wasn't terminated they talked about terminating her but then put out a statement that she had a right to say what she had to say they kept her she asked to transfer  for they said no she comes in as she gets i guess in june the following january the following june three unsatisfaction reports and then the trauma later the spite the fact that before she got tenure but it's clear even from her blog if you look back she was counting down the days and she was counting how many excellent reviews she needed to get before she got it and unfortunately once she got tenure that's where it started to go down t past it wrings is going to trial i mean because who knows why she you know but the one is if she said something that was a public concern or the fact that she and the fact that all these parents said they chose not to have her it was after they were solicited is that really disruption those are two issues that kind of percolate with me first i would say we do disagree that any of this touched upon a matter of public concern simply because it became an issue of public concern did not make her speech at the time one of the fact that not working hard and we need to encourage them you know work harder isn't that a matter of public concern i would contend that no simply because that was her feeling on the  test in order to determine whether it was a protected speech you have to look at the context content and form we have to look at all three of those things and that includes the entire blog the context of a god would be the certain context means the circumstances or facts surrounding an event and in this case this blog by all by her own admission was simply intended to serve as a vehicle to keep in touch with friends she had nine people subscribed to it and it was a way for her to vent about her feelings the form was again a personal blog she thought it was private she did not intend for it to get out she didn't intend for anybody to read it other than use mine subscribers she never meant it as a public forum on anything and if you look at the blog as a whole it shows that mindset i mean there's an entire section talking about the horrible people that were in her meditation class and it shows her mind we're seeing significantly more evidence put in of what actually was said before in the news because of the matters who are new to the number of them already if she was speaking as to the school system as a whole it district was contacted by a reporter because the reporter found a blog where a teacher was spewing vitriol about her students and some of it was really just didn't recognize it was like certain just finish answering your question about the media the only thing that's in the record with respect to the media is to show that i mean her self stated purpose for speaking to was not to talk a not to ignite a national debate not to talk about matters of public concern she testified that felt it was necessary to share to share my side of the story that's why i went to the press to defend my professional reputation as an educator all she was doing was trying to protect herself she wasn't trying to talk about and i think that because it's often when you look at the the community the fact that this was out on national news shows that it was of social or other concern to the community does it not but not it but we're looking at her speech not it's a fairly low threshold public concern it's not a it's not an issue of whether she was permitted to have a blog it's an issue of whether the statement she made in that blog were protected speech and hers her comments to the media were again here it's only towards her reputation  basically i think discussed that she was on suspension which she was because you know she had made these comments i mean it was ok it would seem as if some of these things are in the record of well at least something is pickering analysis who wins under that your honor at this point i would say it's too late the plaintiff had their chance they had a record they developed their record they submitted everything that they thought was necessary  i'm protection judge roof then did what she was supposed to do and she looked at whether or not you know looking at the content forming contacts whether it was protected activity she found that it didn't it was not if you looked at it as a whole if you looked at what was said if you looked at the manner in which it was said he looked at the audience that it was directed to it wasn't  pickle analysis the great analysis is do you have disruption versus speech which comes out as a policy matter higher than the other the trouble here is seem that you had the opportunity to dismiss this employee in february over whether you had the opportunity craps to do so a second chance in september eleventh one hundred kids would not take this class and they probably had to hire another teacher but instead you effect weight that chance and said no this is not this is not to do with pickering this has to do with this person's performance and in that context i don't know who's right but one could suspend a suspicion but that was pretext not saying it is or it is a well could have a suspicion and those are the issues that are typically decided by a year happened before the poor performance assuming she got tenure her performance went downhill even before the broad was discovered they were getting student complaints about her being inattentive her watching her nanny cam during class  third page twenty three and on page a twenty seven it reads even if the potential disruption to the office outweighed the values of the speech the employer may file the employer fire the employee only because of the potential disruption and not because of the speech that is to say it matters not that the potential disruption outweighs the bad of the speech if the employer subjectively makes each the basis of the trauma patient decision such retaliatory discharge is always unconstitutional and that was in effect affirmed seven years later in a case called notes or a meal z e r and if if what happened here is you have the said but we have to look at the factors as it relates to her speech not as it relates to when she was terminated as it relates to her speech and the issues are whether it and it impairs harmony among coworkers she need to coworker and degree of public trust not found in many other positions of public employment is that you know you also said by the same token the government prevails in a balancing test so even if you prevail the employee may still carry the day if you can show that the an objective test what is it that it is it is a question of who are based on the facts of the circumstances of the case ok so it's a question of law so you look at the the words the context the warm and content of those words and then you see whether these kinds of words are inherently disruptive that you determine whether the speech is protected by looking at  the content form and context of the speech if that then becomes an issue public concern looking at all those factors that and then you have to look at whether the employer had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member and that's when we look at the picture and balance and test that's what the pickering were actually the pickering balancing test comes into whether the employer had an adequate justification which is whether and the balancing test is again there's there's four factors to look at it doesn't have to me off what factors you have to balance the employer's interests paris's the employee's interest and one of the and in the school in the school setting that also looked at whether or not the statement interfered with the employee's proper job performance or with the overall operation of the school and in this case both of those things happened there but the but the truth sounds a little evaluation which  purpose prior to that they had received student complaints that she admitted were true and she was she was warned about that she was placed on a warning she was told that she had to meet certain criteria and then for example in october two thousand and eleven mr luka bob was walking past a classroom he didn't know it was miss monroe's classroom he noticed students talking on their cell phone saw an object being thrown across the room when there was nobody in that so five minutes before she came back performance is what she did was disruptive to the school and you quit in affidavits about what happened and that although we part of this reason this speech was not protected speech because of  i wanted to wait maybe you can start with that because the point being that ok but let's assume something is a matter of public concern but for it to be protected it has to also get through it picker right to say what she said i almost agree with that i don't agree it's potential i think it's destruction not destruction here maybe it happened if we had a different way but described the fact that she is a public school her experiences in this public school in florida her opinion as a teacher would experience was extremely important not only to the n i still get to work with you and the court says no no you're also equal with your boss you can't work efficiently a teacher is a need to stray should teachers in a public school have every right to criticize every first amendment right to criticize the principal and the principal may not like it and this and the parents may not like it but it doesn't affect that fact doesn't affect your ability to teach the students the students were taught and they were taught by an individual who was deemed to be not