Question

1. Ron and Megan Dible needed some extra money so they decided to charge money for viewing some sexually explicit photographs and videos of themselves that they had posted on the Internet. While this was an otherwise legal act, Ron Dible was a police officer, and after the Chandler Police Department, his employer, learned of his actions, he was terminated. Is his termination in violation of his right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment?

Answer 1

According to the First Amendment, there is a protection granted to the citizens with the right to expression as well as that of speech, without any Governmental intervention. In this regard, just because Ron is a Government employee, shall not make him exceptional to enjoy the First Amendment rights. In the consideration of Ron’s expression of speech, one needs to examine whether or not the speech is in the relation to his employment. The Police holds a moral responsibility to the citizens of the State and in such a case, Ron’s act, although did not have any direct impact upon the functioning of the Police Department but the social codes were certainly pierced and caused much disrespect to the Police Department as well. His sexual explicit activities, although was granted to him as per the Constitutional rights, but made him inappropriate to discharge his role as a Police Officer in the City. Therefore, his termination is based on his acts that make his work profile contradict with his parallel business distinctly and does not make him morally fit to assume his role as a Police Officer hence the termination is justified.