<P> The government is not permitted to fire an employee based on the employee's speech if either the speech is on a matter of public concern, the speech is not said as part of that employee's job duties, or the damage caused by the speech is outweighed by the value of the speech to the employee and public . Specifically, speech is "treated as a matter of public concern" by reference to the "content, form, and context of a given statement". The exception with regards to balancing the harm of a statement and the value of the statement (the Pickering test) is done by considering the degree to which the speech either interferes with close working relationships, disrupts the office, or even has the potential to do either . </P> <P> Regulations of speech on broadcast radio and television are permissible when they are (1) narrowly tailored and (2) further a substantial government interest . Interests that have been found "substantial" include shielding listeners from supposedly offensive ideas and shielding children from offensive expression . The Supreme Court has limited these rules to traditional broadcasting, refusing an attempt to apply this to the internet . </P> <P> When the Government acts as a kindergarten through twelfth grade educator, they are allowed to restrict speech in certain instances . The Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) that only when speech "materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school". Later court decisions added more situations where restrictions were possible, including student speech about drugs, "vulgar and offensive" language, and school - operated newspapers . The primary basis for the educator - distinction is based on the concept of in loco parentis, the principle that the school functions as parents over the students, thus allowing broader discretion in limiting student speech and expression . </P> <P> The most complex special capacity of the government is when it functions, in one way or another, as the Subsidizer of the speech in question . As a general rule, the government can itself say whatever it wants to, even if this "favors one viewpoint over another". But, the government may not impose conditions on how subsidy recipients spend money they get from other sources . If the government is using the speakers to express its own message, it is constitutional . But this analysis changes if the government is trying to encourage a "diversity of private views indiscriminately". If it is indiscriminate, then under Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez (2001), the government must be acting in a viewpoint - neutral way . However, if the government is basing some judgment of "quality" on the views, then only "invidious viewpoint discrimination" is barred . </P>

Why does the free expression clause have some limits