A Chandler police officer involved in what judges called a "sleazy," "vulgar" and "indecent" sexually explicit Web site is not entitled to get his job back, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments by Ronald Dible that the First Amendment protected his right to operate the Web site, which featured photographs and videos of his wife, Megan, engaged in various sex acts.
The judges said Dible was running the Web site not to express a point of view but simply to raise money.
And even if there are constitutional considerations, government agencies can subject their employees to some restrictions that would otherwise be unconstitutional if applied to everyone else, the judges said.
Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, writing for the majority, said that tracks with the need for police departments to maintain "an effective and strong operation."
People are also reading…
"It would not seem to require an astute moral philosopher or brilliant social scientist to discern the fact that Ronald Dible's activities, when known to the public, would be detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer," he wrote.
"The public expects (police) officers to behave with a high level of propriety and, unsurprisingly, is outraged when they do not do so," Fernandez continued. "The law, and their own safety, demands that they be given a degree of respect, and the sleazy activities of Ronald and Megan Dible could not help undermining that respect."
Wednesday's ruling was not unanimous. Judge William Canby Jr. said Dible's activities are constitutionally protected because he never identified himself on the Web site as a Chandler police officer.
"Vigorous enforcement of the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment often requires that we protect speech that many, even a majority, find offensive," he wrote. And he said what was on Dible's Web site, although pornographic, did not rise to the level of being obscene and therefore illegal.
But Canby sided with the majority in refusing to order Dible reinstated. The judge said even if he could not be fired for his Web site, he certainly could be fired for lying to superiors about his connection to the operation.
Court records show the Dibles began running the Web site in 2000. It featured Megan Dible, who was working under a pseudonym, engaged in various sexual poses and activities.
One of the photographs showed Ronald Dible.
"The Dibles did not intend to express any kind of message or engage in social or political commentary through the material they posted on their Web site," Fernandez said. "They participated in those activities to make money; it was as simple as that."
The couple also marketed their Web site and a CD through live appearances at various bars in the area.
His activities eventually came to the attention of his department, which opened an investigation. Dible eventually was fired for violating regulations prohibiting activities that bring discredit to the department, as well as for lying during the inquiry.
Fernandez said Dible's activities were not designed to inform the public about the operations of the Police Department.
And he said they were not private comments, which courts have said are protected, even by government workers.
"His activities were simply vulgar and indecent," the judge wrote. "They did not contribute speech on a matter of public concern."
