Friday, September 07, 2007

sadly porn and law enforcment doesn't mix

No word on whether or not he was hott. Perhaps I should ask him for a picture? Or a video.....

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - An Arizona police department had the right to fire a police officer who made and sold "vulgar and indecent" sex videos in which he performs with his wife, a U.S. appeals court ruled.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that Ronald Dible had engaged in "sleazy activities" and ruled that a lower court had properly dismissed Dible's claims that the Chandler, Arizona, police department infringed his First Amendment rights to free speech by firing him.

Dible lost his job in 2002 after the Chandler police department learned he was running a sexually explicit Web site featuring him and wife, Megan, which they operated to make money.

"We have not yet abandoned our social codes to the point that a city can be sanctioned for violating a police officer's First Amendment rights when he causes disrespect of the police department and its members by performing in and purveying pictures of his and his wife's sexually explicit activities over the Internet," Judge Ferdinand Fernandez wrote for a three-judge panel.

"Ronald Dible may have the constitutional right to run his sex-oriented business but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman for the city at the same time.

"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 but undermine that respect.

"His activities were simply vulgar and indecent."

4 comments:

SpongyBones said...

Ever notice that everything bad always starts in AZ ...

H2o said...

I with you Goddess. I wonder if he is hot...Hmmm...

The Future Was Yesterday said...

Maybe I'm just hearing voices in my tinfoil helmet, but I have some serious concerns with this.
"vulgar and indecent" sex videos in which he performs with his wife, a U.S. appeals court ruled.
If you and your wife, Husband, boyfriend, etc. mutually agree to sex acts, there is nothing "indecent" nor "vulgar" about it.The courts have no business passing judgment on what happens in his bedroom.
"We have not yet abandoned our social codes to the point that a city can be sanctioned for violating a police officer's First Amendment rights when he causes disrespect of the police department
Read that carefully. They violated his First Amendment rights because he caused disrespect of the police department.
Show me where causing disrespect for any authority figure, is cause for violating any rights, in the constitution.

"Ronald Dible may have the constitutional right to run his sex-oriented business but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman for the city at the same time.
Some judge somewhere is related to Bush - they write their constitution as they go.

Given all that, he AND his wife, were interesting characters, to say the least.;)

*Goddess* said...

Yes, but some sex acts are illegal in certain states, be they between husband and wife or not. I haven't seen the website, so I have no idea what they did. IF the sex acts are illegal, I'm guessing they can get away with firing him, and deeming it "vulgar and indecent". Just playing devil's advocate is all;)