Court Upholds Police Officer's Firing Over Adult Website
'His activities were simply vulgar and indecent,' says judge
By: Eddie Adams
Posted: 09/06/2007
SAN FRANCISCO
– A federal appeals court has decided that a police department acted within its
rights when it fired an officer for operating a website featuring sexually
explicit material. Ronald Dible and his wife, Megan, launched the adult site in
2000, and charged users for viewing explicit pictures and videos.
Dible was fired in 2002, when the SFPD discovered the
site and claimed Dible’s conduct — though it was unrelated to his job — hurt
the department's public image.
Although he initially denied involvement
with the site, Dible filed suit against the police department in 2003, claiming violation of his free speech rights.
“His activities were simply vulgar and indecent,” Judge
Ferdinand Fernandez — who upheld a lower court decision — told the San Francisco Chronicle. “They did not
contribute speech on a matter of public concern.” The second member of the
three-judge panel, Chief Judge Mary Schroeder, agreed with Fernandez.
The ruling raises questions about what employees can and cannot
do with their free time.
Several officers testified against Dible at his disciplinary
hearing, claiming that because of the site, they had become the objects of
ridicule within the community.
According to the Chronicle, the appeals court cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2004 that
allowed San Diego
to fire a police officer who had made and sold sexually explicit videos of
himself, stripping out of a police uniform.
Judge William Canby broke away from the panel by disagreeing
with the ruling, saying that Dible’s initial denial of the site would be the
only valid grounds for his dismissal. Canby told the Chronicle that police officers, like other public employees, have a
right to free expression outside the workplace that is unrelated to their job,
even if some find it objectionable.
