A San Diego police officer known only as John Roe was fired from the police force for making videotapes of himself masturbating in uniform and selling them on eBay, the online auction site.

Roe sued, claiming that he had been fired for expressing his point of view. The 9th Circuit upheld his claim, ruling that the videos amounted to a form of free speech.

In an unsigned opinion without recorded dissent, the Supreme Court said it had "no difficulty" summarily ruling otherwise, without briefing or oral argument.

Under existing precedent, the court gives public employees less protection in airing internal workplace grievances, and more protection for speaking out against their employers' policies. Roe's videos fit comfortably into neither category, but the court noted that they did not concern any subject of "legitimate news interest."

"The speech in question was detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer," the court said. "There is no basis for finding that it was of concern to the community as the Court's cases have understood that term in the context of restrictions by governmental entities on the speech of their employees."

I hope none of you neocons come crying to me when you make a jerk-vid of yourselves in your Jr. Chipmunk uniform.

I don't have a problem with this decision. The guy was an officer and used his uniform for his vids. The dope. He could have done the vids without his actual uniform and without implicating his department. Or anyone who wasn't an officer could have used a SDPD uniform for the vids. It's a reasonable employment limitiation to prevent an employee from "representing" an employer in vids.

I don't have a problem with this decision. The guy was an officer and used his uniform for his vids. The dope. He could have done the vids without his actual uniform and without implicating his department. Or anyone who wasn't an officer could have used a SDPD uniform for the vids. It's a reasonable employment limitiation to prevent an employee from "representing" an employer in vids.

Same here. Even assuming this was speech, speech is not always without consequences. I'm sure there is some sort of morals clause in his contract, fully approved by the union, too. If this doesn't violate a morals clause, I doubt anything would.

At some point, maybe the Court just kicks in a little common sense and says "uh, that goes too far..." reasoning that any form of legitimate speech won't be chilled by this decision.

Had the Court ruled the other way, I suppose Pee Wee would have gotten off on the grounds he was expressing himself. Whacking off would be a protected form of free speech. Do we really want to go there?

. Whacking off would be a protected form of free speech. Do we really want to go there?

Although I am a big free speech proponent personally, I spent several years representing an entity that was on the other end of the free speech issue. Although I have not read the Supreme Court's first amendment speech jurisprudence in a few years, in the '90s, I thought that the Free Speech was one of the areas where the current Supreme Court actually was pretty far out on the edge of things (i.e., finding free speech protections that I thought were a stretch). You may be right about this decision -- the Supreme Court may have thought that enough is enough. But, in fairness to the Ninth Circuit, were I a federal appellate judge interpreting what the Supreme Court has said over the last 20 years about free speech, I probably would have ruled in favor of the cop.

If jerking off was ruled as free speech can you imagine what we would have to put up with? I for one do not want to see Michael Moore doing a 21 gun salute on the White House lawn. :eek:

I really hope selling videos of youself jerking off while wearing a work uniform can still get you fired. Thank dog common sense prevails. However, I am wondering if he was "on the clock" when he made the videos. Even so, you should still be able to can someone if they are wearing the representation of the company.

<a href="http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06dec20041100/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1669.pdf"> Porn video opinion</a>

Had the Court ruled the other way, I suppose Pee Wee would have gotten off on the grounds he was expressing himself.

:D

nm...

I love a man in a uniform...