Are Police Officer’s Comments About Obama On Private My Space Pages Protected Speech?

So…..two Durham police officers are under internal investigation for comments made about Obama on their personal My Space pages:

DURHAM – Derogatory remarks toward President-elect Barack Obama made on a social networking Web site are now the subject of an internal police investigation.
A police department employee claims the statements were made on the MySpace pages of two Durham officers.

If you read the article you’ll see that they haven’t disclosed the nature of the comments – other than to say that they were derogatory, that is – and it begs the question: if the comments were made on their off time and on their private My Space pages, are they protected as free speech under the First Amendment?
Short answer: If they were saying that, hey this guy sucks and he’s a communist and he’ll be a terrible president and he has big ears, too, then the answer is yeah, that’s probably well within their right of free expression.
BUT – if a racial slur was used, then those officers could well have violated the rules of conduct that all departments have:

The department’s code of conduct, under the heading “private life,” states that an officer’s “character and conduct while off duty must always be exemplary, thus maintaining a position of respect in the community in which he or she lives and serves. The officer’s personal behavior must be beyond reproach.”
Lopez said even though the remarks were made on a personal Web page, the comments could be a violation of the policy.
“As a police officer, it doesn’t matter where you do it, if you provide disservice to the organization, it violates the [department's] code of conduct,” he said. “It is a high standard that officers are held accountable to.”

The use of a racial slur, even off duty, would probably be considered “unbecoming conduct” in just about any department.
If it’s determined that a racial slur was used, then those officers will probably face disciplinary action. If, however, what they said just ruffled the feathers of someone because of the political nature of the comments, then the department and city are on very thin ice Constitutionally speaking if they proceed with disciplinary action aginst them.
Personally, I hope those officers weren’t silly enough to say anything racially offensive about Obama because, like it or not, police officers are held to a higher standard of conduct on their off duty time. Racial slurs, for police officers anyway, aren’t protected speech.
Double standard? Yep, but it’s one you agree to live with when you sign on.
Good luck to those guys. I hope this turns out to be just another politically correct witch hunt.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array robert108

    Personal opinions about anything fall under the First Amendment, regardless of content. The PC totalitarianism that seeks to make some personal opinions illegal is a direct violation of the First Amendment. If you make speech about content, then it’s totalitarianism, not freedom.

  • eneils Bailey

    We are coming upon a Presidency that is going to be protected by “Hate Crime Laws.”

    You will not be able to do and say the same things about Obama that the left did and said against George Bush.
    The “thought police ” will be up your ass worse than a bad case of hemorrhoids.

  • mddc

    Wow, such instant hostility, robert108. Chill out.

    I’ll go backwards in terms of responding to some of what you wrote. First off, there’s no need for “due process” in my opinion of the officers; as I wrote, I think whatever they wrote on the Web is freedom of speech, so there’s no legal process to consider. What I raised was the issue of how employers (in this case, the police department/legal infrastructure) should react — nothing at all to with the legality of the act. Glad you were able to throw in one of your “leftie tyranny” statements, though I must admit I wished it had been one of your “leftie liar” comments.

    And also —

    whereas flag burning and hanging in effigy are actual crimes of action, not thought

    — sorry, flag burning isn’t an “actual crime” at all.

  • mddc

    robert108 — what does the story above have to do with flag burning (other than that you can raise first amendment arguments about them, I guess)? For the record, I think both flag burning and what the officers said above should be allowed under the first amendment (as should burning in effigy, on either side). Not a fan of any of the tactics, but I believe they should be protected.

    Now, the question is, what’s going to happen to the folks who partake in those tactics in terms of their professional lives? That’s what the story is really about, and it’s a legitimate question/concern. Just consider law enforcement officers, and go back to the O.J. case — and I grant you that we have no idea what their comments were in the above story, so what follows only holds true if the comments were racially derogatory. Do you think maybe police officers who publicly put negative comments toward African Americans out in the public on the Internet might get torn apart in criminal court cases, as Mark Furhman was? And therefore hurt their departments reputation, and the ability to prosecute criminals who happen to be African American? Sure seems likely to me —

    So what are police departments to do? Allow this type of behavior by their officers even while they’re off duty with the knowledge that future criminal cases could be compromised by their off duty actions, or uphold certain standards of conduct (that officers agree to when they sign on) to ensure the integrity of the law enforcement process?

  • di butler

    likwidshoe,

    PLEASE!

  • Hawk

    Because they are critical of Barack Obama, the black community cannot count on these officers to protect them? That’s assinine.

    I’m assuming the comments were racist. If not than their should be no disciplinary actions.

  • Pilgrim

    108:

    Probable cause isn’t necessary in an internal (administrative) investigation. Only in criminal cases. And like I explained above, Garrity covers due process under the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights unless the case turns criminal, and then Miranda applies.

  • Pilgrim

    r108,

    Officers under internal investigation ARE given due process rights under the Garrity Act.

    The use of a racial slur isn’t a crime (if there was one used in this case) but an administrative violation of departmental rules of conduct.

    Under Garrity, any statement an officer makes in an internal investigation can’t be used against him criminally anyway. Why? Because the officer is compelled to make that statement or be fired. And no statement made under compulsion is criminally admissible.

  • robert108

    For the record, I think both flag burning and what the officers said above should be allowed under the first amendment (as should burning in effigy, on either side). Not a fan of any of the tactics, but I believe they should be
    protected.

    Do you approve of “hate crime” laws? That is thought crime, whereas flag burning and hanging in effigy are actual crimes of action, not thought. I don’t think the First Amendment has a damn thing to do with destroying our flag or simulating the torture and death of a political opponent. Both are acts of intimidation, designed to suppress the free speech of others who disagree with the ideology of the perpetrator. They are, in fact, the opposite of free speech.

  • robert108

    If burning the American Flag is “free speech”, why not this?

  • robert108

    Pil: Thanks for the information, but I was commenting on the difference between some versions of protected speech(flag burning, hanging in effigy) and what a police officer does in his private life. I don’t agree that the first two should be protected, but think that the police officer’s should be.

  • robert108

    Odd that burning our flag is the recognized procedure when decommissioning one.

    So it depends of the intention of the match striker.

    Wrong! Burning a worn out or damaged flag is allowed, but not a perfectly good one, or one which the burner has vandalized previously.

    You lie again.

  • robert108

    Actually, morons who say stupid and bigoted things like that expose themselves as hate-filled assholes.

  • 2Hotel9

    Which of our resident leftards does this suckpuppet belong to?

  • Hawk

    That’s quite the assumption. Because they were deregetory they must be racist? Maybe they called him a baby killer. Maybe they called him a filthy socialist. Or a racist himself.

    It was also part of the premise of Pilgrim’s article.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    I’m assuming the comments were racist. If not than their should be no disciplinary actions.

    That’s quite the assumption. Because they were deregetory they must be racist? Maybe they called him a baby killer. Maybe they called him a filthy socialist. Or a racist himself.

    Just because they are investigated, doesn’t mean there will be punishment.

    You hear “criticized Barack Obama” and assume it was racist. Something wrong with your brain.

  • Jerry

    We’ve “Elected” a “Black” man..

    What?.. “Still” can’t use the “N” word if you’re white?

    What the hell do we have to do in order to have the same freedom of speach that is extended to African Americans?

    I thought whites were no longer considered “racist” prone, given the benefit of the doubt now?????

    Hey!
    I voted for BO to get this stuff off my back. Whaa Happen??

  • 2Hotel9

    Obviously not, stupid ass. A leftarded moron like you expects to be cut some slack. Well, no. Get over yourself, you are simply another fucking moron that wants other people to “freight your ride”, fuck you. Get a job and shut the fuck up.

  • Pilgrim

    Hawk,

    The comments don’t necessarily have to be racist to be investigated. Any complaint to Internal Affairs requires an investigation. Unfortunately this type of complaint makes news.

    Generally IA complaints are confidential pending the outcome. Someone leaked this.

    Political agenda? maybe.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    It was also part of the premise of Pilgrim’s article.

    He said that could be it, but that it could also be nothing.

    He also said that IA investigations are confidential, but this one got leaked…maybe because of politics.

  • http://www.drudgereport.com/ FHJR

    mddc,

    For the record, I think both flag burning and what the officers said above should be allowed under the first amendment (as should burning in effigy, on either side). Not a fan of any of the tactics, but I believe they should be protected.

    Why?

  • Anh

    Even the KKK was smart enough to wear mask. Don’t say anything in your own name you are not willing to say aloud in public.

    I probably agree with whatever racial slurs the officers say but I find better way of saying it.

  • Man Train

    Bush is a honkey.

    Oh, the oppression!

  • jpe

    Obviously, private employers can (and do) regulate the off-duty speech of their employees. Anyone that has worked with a large-ish corporation knows that. The question is whether the rules that apply to private corps apply to government when it is the employer.

    If I recall correctly, there’s a pretty decent sized corpus of law out there on this topic. Anyone that would like to find out what the answer is – as opposed to make asinine comparisons to hate crime laws – could do so.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    Odd that burning our flag is the recognized procedure when decommissioning one.

    So it depends of the intention of the match striker.

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    The actions of these police officers, certainly not a crime. However, there is a code of conduct they agreed to. How can minority members of the public have any confidence in these officers willingness to protect them? This goes to their fitness to be a police officer. It these comments were racial than I think adminstrative actions, possibly up to firing are appropriate.

    Because they are critical of Barack Obama, the black community cannot count on these officers to protect them? That’s assinine.

    That’s like saying the white community cannot count on any officer who is critical of Bush.

    You’re kidding right?

  • ollie-B

    Like I said before:
    When you hold the power of life and death in your hands, their is no place for bigotry in your heart.

  • http://drudgereport.com/ FHJR

    Great Points. I personally dont think things like burning an American flag or hanging Sarah Palin in effigy should be tolerated. I dont think either of those things are protected under the first amendment. The first amendment is to protect a persons right to state their opinion on somthing freely and without penalty. Clearly the two morons in West Hollywood’s opinion of Sarah Palin is that she should be hung. I would view that as a death threat, not a persons right to express themselves. The first amendment has been so terribly abused it discusts me.

  • robert108

    So what are police departments to do? Allow this type of behavior by their officers even while they’re off duty with the knowledge that future criminal cases could be compromised by their off duty actions, or uphold certain standards of conduct (that officers agree to when they sign on) to ensure the integrity of the law enforcement process?

    I think the officer is entitled to Due Process, starting with probable cause that a crime has been committed, or that your claim of compromising future cases can be proved to be true.
    Acting out of fear that someone might not like it is the essence of leftie tyranny. The law should be about facts, not feelings.

  • Texan Across the Pond

    Any negative comment or observation about The Hallowed One can be and will be called “racist”. The Thought Police simply arrived 24 years later.

  • Hawk

    Burning your own flag should not be illegal. It is your flag. Burning somebody elses flag, that could be a crime. But it has nothing to do with the intent of the flag burner.

    Hanging somebody in effigy, to be a crime there would have to be something more to show a real threat. If you hang somebody in effigy on their own lawn, probably a threat. If it is done in West Hollywood, probably not a threat.

    The actions of these police officers, certainly not a crime. However, there is a code of conduct they agreed to. How can minority members of the public have any confidence in these officers willingness to protect them? This goes to their fitness to be a police officer. It these comments were racial than I think adminstrative actions, possibly up to firing are appropriate.

  • Man Train

    Man Train, for a supporter of the “Fairness Doctrine” on the supposition that “hate speech” shouldn’t be allowed, you’re one hypocritical and hateful son of a bitch.

    I should now ban you on your own principle, censoring “hate speech” and all. Be careful what you wish for.

    likwadsow,

    I was showing rhetorical examples. Did I not clearly state that I oppose such hateful comments?

  • robert108

    – sorry, flag burning isn’t an “actual crime” at all.

    Of course it is; destruction of property and destruction of a national symbol. What “free speech” purpose is being served by burning our national flag?
    If you think disagreement is “hostility”, you are sadly mistaken.

    The probable cause and due process are appropriate in this case, since the officer is being denied his free speech rights, and faces actual losses as a result of his exercising his free speech rights in private.

  • http://drudgereport.com/ FHJR

    mddc,

    What is it that the officers said that you think should be protected?

  • robert108

    How can minority members of the public have any confidence in these officers willingness to protect them?

    Once again, if there is no evidence of any diminshed protection from these officers, this is just about feelings, not facts.

    Hanging someone in effigy is at least a hate crime, and if we allow some, why not all?

  • eneils Bailey

    We are entering into a whole new world of political discourse.

    For instance, hanging Sarah Palin in effigy, is a free expression of artistic rights.

    For instance, hanging Barrack Obama in effigy, is a hate crime.

    People, we have run off the tracks, there’s something wrong here.

  • Hoss

    Freedom of speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. If somebody wants to burn a flag or hang someone in effigy, okay. The way I look at it is that this person is an a-hole and telling me exactly what he/she is all about. But people need to be consistent, if you’re not gonna get pissed about someone hanging Palin in effigy, don’t get pissed if Obama gets it too. Enough with the race card.

    Why would you possibly put your job in jeopardy by posting anything out there for the whole world to see (not a judgment on what these officers did or didn’t do, just a general thought about maintaining a little discretion).

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Man Train, for a supporter of the “Fairness Doctrine” on the supposition that “hate speech” shouldn’t be allowed, you’re one hypocritical and hateful son of a bitch.

    I should now ban you on your own principle, censoring “hate speech” and all. Be careful what you wish for.

  • Man Train

    Actually, morons who say stupid and bigoted things like that expose themselves as hate-filled assholes.

    I agree. That’s why it should be illegal. When I hear egghead liberals call me dumb n’ shit I just wanna blow their faggy bigot heads off!

    I DO cling to my guns and religion! Those are the two things that have made America so great!

  • 2Hotel9

    So, no crime was committed, and yet these Americans have been punished. Law suite time!! Line up, scumbag lawyer assholes, lots of money to steal here, you anti-American fuckbags.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    When I hear egghead liberals call me dumb…

    I would think you’d be used to it by now! And not just from liberals…

  • Man Train

    You know, I think anti-religious speech should be considered hate speech.

    I think it should be illegal to say stuff like,

    “You’d have to be a complete f**king moron to believe that the world was made in seven days,”

    or

    “Whoever thinks he has spoken to ‘God’ is either lying or schizophrenic,”

    or

    “The world would be better off without Judeo-Christian religions,”

    or

    “Whoever wishes to convert others to their wackjob Fundamentalist religion is only doing so to secure themselves a place in an unprovable supermagicland after they die. These people are ultimately unenlightened and selfish.”

    or

    “To deny Evolution is to deny that you have thumbs.”

  • http://shelbyactionnews.com/ Hal

    Unfortunately, there are bad apples in every barrel. In my neck of the woods, check out our local Rambo wannabe. Kinda scary.

    http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=71885945

    Have a great weekend folks, and keep up the good work here.

    Hal

  • http://legal-beagle.typepad.com/wrights_legal_beagle/2010/01/social-network.html benjaminwright

    From the point of view of an employer (like the Durham Police Dept.), social networking is tricky. On the one hand, sites like Myspace promote camaradarie. On the other hand, they can foster abuse, which the employer needs to block. –Ben

  • rob is a tool

    Personally, I hope those officers weren’t silly enough to say anything racially offensive about Obama

    “silly” is how you would characterize racially offensive comments? the point isn’t about what they said, but rather that you would deem the act as “silly” – you’re a tool, rob.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I didn’t write this post, genius. Pilgrim did, so your nickname should read “pilgrim is a tool.”

    Learn to read, so that you look a bit less like a tool yourself.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development