by TChris

The Supreme Court today rejected a police officer's claim that his employer violated his right to free speech by terminating his employment after learning that he used the internet to sell "videotapes of himself stripping off his uniform and pretending to write tickets."

The court traditionally has been very protective of speech rights. But justices had no sympathy Monday for a former San Diego officer who uses the Internet name "codestud3," a play on words incorporating the term for an emergency police call.

The Supreme Court ruled against him without even hearing arguments. The justices issued an unsigned opinion that found his speech "was detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer."

The Court has generally applied a balancing test to free speech retaliation claims, weighing an employee's interest in speaking about a public concern against a public employer's interest in operating a government agency without disruption. The balance weighed against the cop who (at least in the Court's view) made a mockery of his employment by making and hawking the video. The threshold issue, however, is whether the speech addresses a matter of public concern. The Court viewed the officer's desire to sell his naughty videotapes as a purely private matter.