Okay, there IS a limit
It's nice to see a Supreme Court judgment I'm in total agreement with.
Quote of note:
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.
San Diego v. Roe, No. 03-1669.
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."
