Most of the Commonwealth workers who responded to a call for submissions from the Public Service Commissioner said they wanted the same level of free-speech available to all citizens.

The Public Service Commission is revisiting its past advice to public servants in the wake of ongoing confusion over what type of public comments are acceptable, especially on Facebook and Twitter.

Several high-profile cases in recent years have failed to clarify the conflict between public servants' duty to be impartial and their freedom of political communication, an implied right in the constitution.

In response to a call from Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd for public servants to join the conversation, many departmental employees have taken the chance to vent their frustration.

One government official "Mel" wrote that fear tactics were being used to stifle public servants's free speech.

"Public Service Commission discourages public servants and removes their right to talk freely," Mel wrote.

"Enough with the fear tactics."

"Clare" told of her belief that the existing rules intruded on the basic right of political expression.

"The current social media requirements for APS staff are intrusive and compromise the implied right to political communication we have as Australians," she wrote.

"Social interaction and communication increasingly takes place online."

"Matthew" expressed his frustration that foreign-domiciled billionaire Rupert Murdoch enjoyed greater freedom of speech in Australia than the nation's public servants.

"Someone like Rupert Murdoch, who isn't even Australian, is free to say what he likes," Matthew wrote.

"It should not be a requirement of employment to give up one's freedom of speech entirely, as that would leave public debates entirely to non-wage earners."

Another public servant, "Paula", said the bureaucracy's social media rules were stopping its workers living a full life.

"To be unable to comment on political issues is to be unable to comment on life," she wrote.

"We currently have a situation where APS employees are afraid to even 'like' a news article that is mildly critical of any policy, due to the vagueness of the social media guidance provided."

"Tom" described the rules as "draconian."

"I understand that it is important to ensure the impartiality of the public service, but the trade-off in terms of reduced participation of Australians in civic life is too great from a draconian social media policy," he wrote.

"Bargo" told of how they felt muzzled

"There is no clarity at all, I am muzzled," Bargo wrote.

"I can't say anything to criticise govt policy because who knows how that will be perceived (now or in the future)?

"If the policy has no relationship to my dept, I should be able to say what I want (I understand it is not always clear cut)."

But there were some voices raised in support of the present arrangements.

"Donna" wrote of the need to be seen to serve impartially.

"I agree it is an honour and privilege to serve by being a public servant," she wrote.

"We need to be just as respectful, whether you hold a different opinion or view to the government of the day.

" We need to ensure we do not create doubt in the public's mind of our ability to serve impartially.

"To protect public servants from any erosion of trust now or in the future, I believe they should not be posting anything critical."