Courthouse Quote of the Week
[posted by Justin Levine]
Chandler police officer Ronald Dible was fired for participating in a pay sex website with his wife. He sued – claiming First Amendment violations as well as his ‘Right of Privacy’.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected his claims. [PDF alert]
Judge Ferdinand Fernandez was particularly scornful of the ‘Right of Privacy’ claims:
Speaking of unwanted publicity leads to the obvious reflection that intimate as their activity may have been in one sense, it certainly was not intimate in the sense of an activity that they intended to hide. Megan Dible was the star of her own show and happily displayed herself to those willing to pay to view her, and even, as a teaser, to those who were not yet paying. Ronald Dible, for his part, participated in the activity, both as a performer, and as a videographer. He even appeared in public places for the purpose of advertising the Dibles’ activities and their products. While some believe that when we assume the bench we enter a hibernaculum and retreat from reality, we can see that on the facts of this case the Dibles’ right of privacy claims are virtually oxymorons.
Ferdinand Fernandez
Common sense.
Well spotted, Justin. And well put, judge!
Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/5/2007 @ 3:29 pmI can’t comment until I view all the evidence. 😉
nk (a6ecc6) — 9/5/2007 @ 4:16 pmHow stupid can one be?
Retired Vice Cop (dde475) — 9/5/2007 @ 4:33 pmRVC #3…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 9/5/2007 @ 5:35 pmJust how big was the “Dumb Crook File” in your Precinct? Does that answer your question?
Now, if they’d been burning a flag while copulating on the internet ….
Beldar (bdd5c6) — 9/5/2007 @ 8:33 pmNot that there’s anything wrong with it but you don’t see “hibernaculum” in court opinions that often.
DRJ (2afbca) — 9/5/2007 @ 8:37 pmWho knew Alphie was a cop?
Thomas Jackson (bf83e0) — 9/6/2007 @ 7:27 amIf this is the one from Oklahoma, you DO NOT want to see all the evidence.
cstmbuild (6fc537) — 9/6/2007 @ 10:55 amWe have a Chandler, OK, but I don’t remember the town that the police officer was in….the wife was not attractive when they showed her on the local news stations. (Normally, you would assume this couldn’t be happening in more than one location, but the way things have been going lately there could be 1 in every state.)
Is that wifey.com?
Gargus (24a3b0) — 9/6/2007 @ 1:40 pmIf it’s Wifey’s husband, that guy should have quit long ago.
Paul (5efd01) — 9/6/2007 @ 4:22 pmHow sad. What’s indecent, vulgar or sleazy about sex? It’s fun, enjoyable, and we all (almost) like to do it and watch it. Some future generation will look back and lament how unrealized, repressed and tortured we all are and pity us much as we pity the Puritans of Salem. We all got here by sex, it’s beautiful, get over it. Maybe I find eating insects disgusting, but just because someone video tapes it, and sells it on their own time on the net doesn’t mean they can or should be fired over it… or for being heinously ugly, or anti-abortionist/pro-life– if the officer was not selling, producing or otherwise involving it with his police life, ay, if the litmust test shows that he infact studiously avoided disseminiating knowledge of his extracurricular activities, then this case is more about socieity’s and the judges and your sexual hang ups. Pity us all.
palmtap (821234) — 9/7/2007 @ 9:51 amWhy shouldn’t a virtual reality lead to virtual oxymorons?
Or in this case, plain reality and plain morons.
ThomasD (21cdd1) — 9/7/2007 @ 4:17 pm