Greenberg v. Kmetko

The Majority in their opinion conclude that Greenberg, in expressing his disagreement with the decisions of his superiors in two cases, intended “to right injustices Greenberg saw in the handling of the office’s primary responsibilities,” and therefore his statements concerning this disagreement were protected by the First Amendment because they were directed toward a matter of public concern. The Majority, ignoring the context in which Green-berg communicated his disagreements, allows this self-appointed vigilante to premise his 1983 action on conduct that was clearly intended to overturn…