Close this search box.

Dible v. Chandler

Its an old story. Cop does some off-duty adult entertainment work, gets fired, claims that the firing is an infringement upon his First Amendment rights. I agree with that argument, but I must admit that the courts have not been all that friendly to my point of view on this subject.

Nevertheless, there was some nice language in the dissent in the latest in this line of cases. Applying some old-school First Amendment logic, Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby, Jr. dissented from the majority’s unwillingness to hold that the officer’s firing violated the First Amendment.

“Now, I recognize that pornography, although apparently popular, is not a very respected subject of First Amendment protection in many quarters. The majority opinion here reflects that distaste, variously characterizing Dible’s expressive activities as ‘vulgar,’ ‘indecent,’ ‘sleazy,’ and ‘disreputable.’ But vigorous enforcement of the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment often requires that we protect speech that many, even a majority, find offensive. Pornography, and sexual expression in general, is protected by the First Amendment when it does not constitute obscenity (and there is no showing that Dible’s expression meets that extreme standard). We should accept that fact and accord Dible’s expression the constitutional protection to which it is entitled.” (source)

Skip to content