According to Fraser, in which situation does free speech prevail over duty of loyalty?

The correct response emphasizes that free speech prevails when the government is engaged in an illegal act. This perspective is rooted in the principle that the duty of loyalty, which often relates to maintaining confidentiality and allegiance to an employer or organization, does not apply when it comes to addressing unlawful activities by the government.

In cases where the government is acting unethically or unlawfully, exposing such behavior is considered a civic duty and aligns with the fundamental principles of free speech, particularly in democratic societies. Whistleblowing or publicly denouncing unlawful acts is justified as it aims to protect the public interest and hold the government accountable for its actions. This underscores the idea that the duty to speak out against illegality outweighs personal loyalty obligations.

The other choices, while they may involve facets of free speech, typically do not invoke the same urgent need to override duty of loyalty as situations involving illegal government actions do. For example, discussing public issues and expressing personal opinions often fall within the scope of free speech but do not necessarily create a moral or legal imperative to act against loyalty duties. Similarly, representing public service interests is generally aligned with those duties rather than in conflict with them. Thus, the context of illegal government actions creates a compelling scenario where free speech takes precedence.