To consider one aspect of workplace freedom of speech--the question of authority versus freedom, this paper examines the first amendment protections of government workers. The paper looks at freedom of speech rights by using two theoretical frameworks (the natural rights view and the law and economics view) to analyze Supreme Court decisions on balancing free speech and government efficiency. These frameworks are also used to interpret Supreme Court decisions on distinguishing matters of public concern from matters of personal concern and defining topics of public concern. The paper concludes that, after nearly 20 years, judicial decisions in the Consitutional rights of public employees are starting to settle into a recognizable pattern and that there are two sides to be weighed when evaluating workplace freedom of speech. The paper identifies one side as the commenting side, where speech is considered protected if it addresses a matter of public concern. The other side is identified as the organizational efficiency side, in which various factors are weighted against freedom of speech, including: the time, place, and manner; the context in which the dispute arose; whether the statement impairs discipline by supervisors or harmony among coworkers; whether the statement has a detrimental impact on close working relationships in which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary; whether it impedes the performance of the speaker's duties; or whether it interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise. (MS)