No, that case says that they are restricted by the first amendment, and discusses what exactly that stops the from doing. It does not say they might not be restricted by the first amendment.
The original comment I was replying to was arguing that "Google does this, therefore the university can", but that is not the case. Google is not bound by the first amendment, the university is, the argument fails at step 0. That doesn't mean the university can't do it, but it means it isn't a good argument that the university can.
Incidentally, acting as an expert witness is as a private citizen, not as part of the official's public duties, but even if that wasn't the case and this was something that the university could restrict my post would still be correct and the first reply to it missing the point.
The original comment I was replying to was arguing that "Google does this, therefore the university can", but that is not the case. Google is not bound by the first amendment, the university is, the argument fails at step 0. That doesn't mean the university can't do it, but it means it isn't a good argument that the university can.
Incidentally, acting as an expert witness is as a private citizen, not as part of the official's public duties, but even if that wasn't the case and this was something that the university could restrict my post would still be correct and the first reply to it missing the point.