Whether the protection of anonymity is an issue here, I don't believe can be a factor. We could break all matter of 1st Amendment statutes while speaking anonymously, with no recourse, if this were the case. The precept of this Amendment is to not allow such destructive speech to be acceptable in protection of ALLwithout imposing upon the right of EACH American to express individual viewpoints.
Looking over the facts of this case, I think that Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in this case was a pure adherence to the First Amendment rights of the plaintiff. However, I cannot overlook that Mr. Pappas was a violent, racist nutbag, and that his actions proved he was not a desirable employee for a police department. Therefore, I think the Court ultimately made the right decision.
I do think that Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in Pappas v. Giuliani upheld First Amendment rights. This is a very intelligent woman who spent a vast portion of her life studying and memorizing the United States constitution and all of its intricacies. She is one of the few that I have trust in when it comes to Washington.
Our First Amendment rights protect our freedom of speech, simply the freedom to say it, and does not concern itself with what we say. Literature used to promote unpopular viewpoints should not be allowed to be suppressed unless we want to watch a gradual lessening of this right due to popular opinion or state control.
I believe Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in Pappas v. Giuliani did uphold First Amendment rights. I think this is important because the case shouldn't have called into question rather his first amendment rights were revoked. He was not charged for his actions, he was fired. Given that his actions were unbecoming of a officer and proved that his bias made him unfit in the line of duty, I believe it was right for him to be fired.