Case: City of San Diego v. Roe, 2004.
Facts: In City of San Diego v. Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the City of San Diego could fire John Roe, a member of the San Diego police force, for selling on the adults-only section of eBay videotapes showing himself stripping off a police uniform and masturbating.5 While the uniform removed in the videotape was not a San Diego police uniform, Roe identified himself as law enforcement officer, employed the user name "Codestud3@aol.com," a variation of a high priority police radio call, and sold custom videos, police equipment, and official uniforms of the San Diego Police Department on his website.
Issue: San Diego dismissed John Roe from the municipal police force after he prepared and vended online a visual recording displaying himself participating in sexually unambiguous deeds. Did this infringe John Roe's First Amendment right to free speech?
Holding: No, Roe’s participation in its unambiguous nature did not notify the community, and was of an injurious disposition to the San Diego police department. 9 votes for San Diego, 0 vote(s) against.
Majority Opinion Reasoning: The Supreme Court comprehended that Roe took steps to link the San Diego Police Department to his industry which would affect the police department in an adverse way. Even though the activities were outside of work he listed himself as representation in the field of law enforcement. He unmistakably branded himself as a police officer and exploited that to boost his retailing.
A. Rule: The Supreme Court established that Roe’s revocation was not in breach of the First Amendment. Government employers can regulate their employees’ verbal communication in ways that would customarily be illegitimate. Nevertheless, government employees are safeguarded by the First Amendment when their speech relates to matters of public concern. Roe’s speech did not inform the public about...