本文分析美國聯邦最高法院判決，探討美國公務員的言論自由保 障與限制，然後應用該院之分析模式，分析國內事件。當公務員指控 政府雇主因其言論而予紀律處分，侵犯其受憲法增修條文第1條所保 障的言論自由權時，美國聯邦最高法院的分析模式爲：（1)決定公務員 的言論身分（第一道門檻），如果公務員發表者屬於公務職責言論，則 他不是居於公民身分說話，其言論不屬於言論自由條款保護之範圍 (2006年Gwce故案判決）。（2)如果公務員居於公民身分發表言論， 再依公務員言論的內容、形式及情境，決定言論是否屬於公共議題（第 二道門檻）（1983年d案判決）。如果不屬於公共議題，公務員亦 無主張言論自由條款保護的訴訟理由（1968年乃案判決）。（3) 如果公務員居於公民身分，發表屬於公共議題之言論，則再探究政府 機關是否有充分正當的理由，對該公務員爲與其他一般民眾不同的對 待（1968年乃案判決），即進行利益衡平，檢視政府雇主能否提 出抗衡性利益，支持其對公務員所爲的紀律處分。而自1968年乃 案開啓公務員言論公共議題受言論自由條款保護之門至今，聯邦最高法院對公務員言論自由的保護趨向嚴格、限縮的解釋。本文應用上開 分析模式，討論國內郭〇〇（前新聞局駐外人員）案、施〇〇（前衛 生署疾病管制局副局長）案及陳〇〇（郵政基層職員）案，從結果論， 郭〇〇案及陳〇〇案處置適當，對施〇〇案則有點過度反應。

This article discusses the decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the free speech of public employees, and then applies the Court’s Inquires to analyze three events that took place in Taiwan. In Lane v. Franks (2014), the Court applies a three-step inquiry with the principles evolved from Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), Connick v. Myers (1983), and Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), to decide whether public employee’s speech is entitled to the First Amendment protection. The first inquiry is whether the speech was pursuant to official duties. The First Amendment protection holds only when a public employee speaks as a private citizen and the speech itself must not be pursuant to his/her official duties. The second inquiry is whether the speech involved a matter of public concern. When a public employee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern, he/she is not entitled to the First Amendment protection as well. Whether public employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern depends on the content, form, and context. The final inquiry is whether the government as an employer had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently than any other member of the public. The First Amendment protection goes to public employee when the interest of his/her speech outweighs the government’s interest in efficiency and effectiveness. This article applies the above three-step inquiry to three events in Taiwan and argues that the government’s dispositions can be adequately justified for the cases of Kuo 〇〇 and Chen 〇〇. Kuo was the former acting director of the information division at the nation’s representative office in Toronto who was removed after writing a number of articles slandering Taiwan and Taiwanese and alleged that he exercised constitutionally protected free speech, while Chen was an employee of the Taichung Post Office who suffered adverse performance appraisal for raising concern over the uncomfortable workplace to the media and later lost his re-appeal case in the Civil Service Protection and Training Commission. However, this paper argues that the authorities overreacted slightly to the case of Shih 〇〇. Shih was the former deputy director-general at Taiwan’s Center for Disease Control and was accused of violating the Public Functionary Service Act for criticizing the U.S. visa-waive program and expressing his opposition about covering Chinese students under Taiwan’s national health insurance program.