are activities pursuant to official duties. Williams v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 480 F.3d 689, 693 (5th Cir.2007). In Nixon v. City of Houston, a Houston police officer was terminated after the court held that media appearances and articles written by him were not protected by the First Amendment. The court found that by speaking to the media in uniform, at the scene of an accident, while performing his job, the officer had made the speech pursuant to his official duties. Nixon, 511 F.3d at 496-497, 498^99. Nixon, however, is distinguishable. In the ins 51 (“The Court has acknowledged the importance of promoting the public’s interest in receiving the well-informed views of government employees engaging in civic discussion.”); cf. Jordan v. Ector Cnty., 516 F.3d 290, 295 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude that Haverda
recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify recognizing that the first amendment encompasses criticism of government officials recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern recognizing that the first amendment forbids government officials to discharge public employees for not being supporters of the political party in power holding that first amendment prohibits government officials from discharging or threatening to discharge lowerlevel public employees based on their political affiliation