L.Ed.2d 731 (1969), to hold that a written school board policy prohibiting inter-teacher communications concerning employee organizations during non-classroom hours was unconstitutional. Tex. State Teachers Ass’n, 777 F.2d at 1053-55. The Garland and Tinker analyses, however, are simply not applicable in this case because they involve the review of speech restrictions in the unique public school setting, whereas the Pickering/Connick tests are applicable in the “more general public setting.” Miles v. Denver Public Schs., 944 F.2d 773, 777 (10th Cir.1991). Moreover, unlike Garland, there is no allegation here that Downing imposed a blanket prohibition on all present and future union-related speech by all or a vast group of employees. Cf. Nat’l Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. at 468 (<HOLDING>). Next, King contends the district court erred
recognizing that code is speech holding that federal election laws prohibiting corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as electioneering communication or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate is unconstitutional suppression of political speech holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing a prior restraint on a broad range of speech by all federal employees noting that a widespread blanket prohibition on governmental employees potential speech gives rise to far more serious concerns than could any single supervisory decision holding employment protection standard not impermissibly vague in regulating speech of federal employees holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech