Police Officer's Sex Videos Are Not Free Speech, U.S. Supreme Court Says
The naked truth, the Supreme Court says, is that the U.S. Constitution's free speech guarantee doesn't protect a police officer who used the Internet to sell videotapes of himself stripping off his uniform and pretending to write tickets.The Court traditionally has been very protective of speech rights. But justices had no sympathy Monday for a former San Diego officer who uses the Internet name "Code3stud," a play on words incorporating the term for an emergency police call.
The policeman, identified in court papers only as "John Roe," contended his free speech rights were violated when his bosses learned of his outside activities, gave him a warning, then fired him.
The Supreme Court ruled against him without even hearing arguments.
The justices issued an unsigned opinion that found his speech "was detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer."
Comments
Hmm. Do you think they were wrong?
Here's a hypothetical: let's say he turned out to be a member of the KKK and an outspoken white supremacist on his off-hours, but there was no evidence that while he was on the job he broke any rules.
Would it be acceptable to fire him?
Posted by: Dean Esmay | December 6, 2004 11:52 PM
No one is telling this guy that he can't sell nude videos of himself on the internet. His right hasn't been taken away. They fired him because they found it to be distasteful and unprofessional. He is free to continue to sell dirty of videos of his nasty self on the internet, but he should start looking for another job.
First Amendment free speech rights have been misinterpreted and twisted consistently.
Posted by: AR | December 8, 2004 7:28 PM
IN A PERSONS OWN PRIVACY THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TOSO ANYTHING THEY WANT. SHOULD NOT HAVE FIRED HIM. I SMELL LAWSUIT.
Posted by: TAMMY | June 21, 2005 2:15 PM