When Mary Pichelmann was hired by the School of Allied Health at UW-Milwaukee as a part-time clerk, she shouldn’t have had to give up one of every American’s guaranteed freedoms: the right to free speech.

But that is the impression that officials at UW-Milwaukee gave Pichelmann and every other public employee that has paid attention to her case.

Pichelmann was ordered to stop using a so-called “signature” (or quotation) that was tacked on to every e-mail she sent out (she was issued one e-mail account for personal and work use).

District Judge Rudolph Randa agreed with system officials by dismissing the case, saying femenist Gloria Stenem’s quotation (“The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off”) was “vulgar” and “inappropriate.”

Whether or not one agrees with Randa’s assessment of the phrase being vulgar is almost inconsequential.

The larger issue at hand is why was Pichelmann’s e-mail being censored in the first place? If a superior of Pichelmann’s can legally judge her “signature” offensive, it sets a dangerous precedent. If a person were offended when an employee’s “signature” includes a Bible verse, should that employee also be required to change his or her “signature?” The same argument could be made about almost any quotation, but where do you draw the line?

The e-mails an individual sends out are created by that person. Just because someone is working for a company (or part of a university) doesn’t mean they forfeits their basic rights when they walk into the office.

The superiors have the right to inform an employee if he or she is acting unprofessionally. But ultimately it is the employee’s choice to keep or change the “signature.”

When a “signature” becomes an issue – something that is so clearly a personal statement and not that of a business – more restraint should be used.