# Free Speech vs. Being a Cop **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2006, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847 "2006-02-10T12:08:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![brianjedi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@brianjedi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianjedi)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/1 "2006-02-10T12:08:13Z")
[http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1139472859103140.xml&coll=1](http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1139472859103140.xml&coll=1) A NJ police officer named John Feder has been suspended pending an investigation into the stand-up routines he performs as “Club Soda Kenny,” best known for his regular appearances on Opie & Anthony and his time as Andrew Dice Clay’s bodyguard in the 80’s. Someone anonymously mailed a CD of his last performance at a Cringe Humor show in New York City to the police chief. The material (which was played on O&A, and I have heard) was 8 minutes of some of the worst (in subject matter and delivery) rape, pedophilia and bestiality jokes you can imagine. The department is investigating whether the stand-up performances violated police department rules. He was never paid for his performances, and so did not need police department approval to appear, and at no time did he ever acknowledge that he was a police officer. In fact, most O&A listeners didn’t know until the story broke yesterday and they spent an hour discussing it. The question is: should a police officer’s job hang in the balance because of the CONTENT of performances that took place while he was off-duty, assuming that the performances did not violate department regulations about moonlighting? Does his status as a sworn officer abridge his right to freedom of speech when he’s out of uniform, performing under a stage name and not discussing his day job? Personally, I don’t see how the content of his performances matters. If, as comic Jim Norton pointed out yesterday, he were performing a clean Brian Regan-type act, there would be no problem at all. The only reason this is an issue is because of the content of the act. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/2 "2006-02-10T12:12:42Z")
> [@brianjedi](#): > > [http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1139472859103140.xml&coll=1](http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1139472859103140.xml&coll=1) > > The question is: should a police officer’s job hang in the balance because of the CONTENT of performances that took place while he was off-duty, assuming that the performances did not violate department regulations about moonlighting? Does his status as a sworn officer abridge his right to freedom of speech when he’s out of uniform, performing under a stage name and not discussing his day job? There are lots of jobs that dictate how you behave off the clock. I’ve never thought it was an OK thing to do in most cases, but it appears to be legal. I’m interested in seeing how it pans out. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/3 "2006-02-10T14:22:11Z")
True, but can a governmental job do it? That’s a bit different. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/4 "2006-02-10T14:35:11Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > True, but can a governmental job do it? That’s a bit different. The military is a government job. We weren’t allowed to participate in protest among other things that I no longer remember. I didn’t like it then, I don’t like it now, but it was legal. What I don’t know is if it was ever challenged. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/5 "2006-02-10T15:06:38Z")
I would assume that there is a police variation on the military’s ‘conduct unbecoming’ charge. And telling jokes in a public forum about rape when you are one of those charged with assisting victims and pursuing perpetrators of said crime…I can see how it would undermine public confidence in your abilities. ---
**Author:** ![brianjedi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@brianjedi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianjedi)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/6 "2006-02-10T15:42:01Z")
> [@Stonebow](#): > > I would assume that there is a police variation on the military’s ‘conduct unbecoming’ charge. And telling jokes in a public forum about rape when you are one of those charged with assisting victims and pursuing perpetrators of said crime…I can see how it would undermine public confidence in your abilities. Except he’s not, really. He’s in Internal Affairs, i.e. he deals primarily with other cops and not victims directly. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/7 "2006-02-10T16:22:44Z")
Right, I know that about the military. But I’m saying that it’s different from a civilian job, especially the Right-To-Work state versions, where you can be terminated for _any_ reason. There is a union, there are contracts. God only knows what the ‘real’ answer is, but it’ll not be cut-and-dried, it’ll be arbitrated. ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/8 "2006-02-11T00:48:28Z")
> [@brianjedi](#): > > He was never paid for his performances, and so did not need police department approval to appear, and at no time did he ever acknowledge that he was a police officer. In fact, most O&A listeners didn’t know until the story broke yesterday and they spent an hour discussing it. > > The question is: should a police officer’s job hang in the balance because of the CONTENT of performances that took place while he was off-duty, assuming that the performances did not violate department regulations about moonlighting? Does his status as a sworn officer abridge his right to freedom of speech when he’s out of uniform, performing under a stage name and not discussing his day job? To me this makes all the difference. If he identified himself as a Cop or wore his cop uniform on stage to make “dirty” jokes that is one thing. He makes it the Department’s business in that case. I don’t THINK that was the case … I am absolutely ready to stand corrected – I have no idea if this is true or not … but it looks like he did everything he could to keep his identity a secret even to the point of using an alias. So answering the OP in the Spirit given, I think the framing of this as a free speech issue is disingenuous (not saying you brianjedi saying the O&A and the media). I am willing to bet you trade deficit amounts of money that there are outside activity waivers/clearances required for these Officers to do anything non-religious/political - paid or not. There almost always are. So either: The Department knew all this or It \*should have \* known and he violated procedures by not telling and that i the real issue ---
**Author:** ![brianjedi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@brianjedi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianjedi)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/9 "2006-02-11T01:48:33Z")
> [@jimmmy](#): > > To me this makes all the difference. If he identified himself as a Cop or wore his cop uniform on stage to make “dirty” jokes that is one thing. He makes it the Department’s business in that case. I don’t THINK that was the case … I am absolutely ready to stand corrected – I have no idea if this is true or not … but it looks like he did everything he could to keep his identity a secret even to the point of using an alias. > > So answering the OP in the Spirit given, I think the framing of this as a free speech issue is disingenuous (not saying you brianjedi saying the O&A and the media). I am willing to bet you trade deficit amounts of money that there are outside activity waivers/clearances required for these Officers to do anything non-religious/political - paid or not. There almost always are. So either: > > The Department knew all this or It \*should have \* known and he violated procedures by not telling > > and that i the real issue The department knew he was involved in comedy. He makes frequent appearances at the local comedy clubs, usually when one of his friends/fans call him up to the stage to do a few minutes. He also took a leave of absence from the department back in the 80s to be Dice Clay’s bodyguard and assistant (which is where the Club Soda Kenny nickname came from.) And yeah, I can see where framing it in 1st Amendment terms could be seen as disingenuous, but at the same time I don’t know that it’s entirely inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![Dubious\_Weasle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b782af/32.png) [@Dubious\_Weasle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dubious_Weasle)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/10 "2006-02-11T03:47:18Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > The military is a government job. **We weren’t allowed to participate in protest** among other things that I no longer remember. > I didn’t like it then, I don’t like it now, but it was legal. > What I don’t know is if it was ever challenged. > > Jim This is a frequently misunderstood issue. You can partcipate in protests while in the military. The trick is that you have to be careful to do it out of uniform and not to use/identify your status as a member of the military. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/11 "2006-02-11T09:40:27Z")
> [@Dubious Weasle](#): > > This is a frequently misunderstood issue. You can partcipate in protests while in the military. The trick is that you have to be careful to do it out of uniform and not to use/identify your status as a member of the military. thing is, a sworn officer is never off “sworn officer duty” he always packs. I guess if the guy got permsision to take his gun off when on stage, maybe he can distance from the job enough to skate. I don’t know if packing is mandatory for cops off duty but I think it is. OTOH, what about when they go out drinking? Obviously I don’t know what I talking about… ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/12 "2006-02-11T20:00:02Z")
> [@Dubious Weasle](#): > > This is a frequently misunderstood issue. You can partcipate in protests while in the military. The trick is that you have to be careful to do it out of uniform and not to use/identify your status as a member of the military. You might be right or your information may not have been true in 1985 when I went in. I recall (which means I can be wrong) that we were specifically instructed that we could not participate in Protests Rallies. No-Nukes was specifically mentioned. Ironic considering that I and several others were schedule to go to Nuke School. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Dubious\_Weasle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b782af/32.png) [@Dubious\_Weasle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dubious_Weasle)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/13 "2006-02-12T07:05:35Z")
> [@What Exit?](#): > > You might be right or your information may not have been true in 1985 when I went in. > I recall (which means I can be wrong) that we were specifically instructed that we could not participate in Protests Rallies. No-Nukes was specifically mentioned. Ironic considering that I and several others were schedule to go to Nuke School. > > Jim I’m fairly sure the rules regarding protest [hidden away in the UCMJ] haven’t been changed though the atmosphere regarding protests has changed some. Now that said, the chain of command certainly does not support protest and there are numerous ways they have to discourage the activity. How far they go depends on the unit and how far the military member wants to go to insist on their rights; not always the wisest idea. For example, while a commander would be out of line saying that a military member cannot participate in lawful protest [out of uniform, anonymously] in _general_ he certainly could declare a _specific_ protest off limits by any number of means. The easiest way to do this would be to simply change the justification from a suppression of protest to a ‘force protection issue.’ Any number of similar methods could be used to forbid participation in a nuke or any other protest. Moreover, justification is not always needed because unless someone decides to stick their neck out, challenge the issue and make sure it goes to a court martial the command never needs to put forth their legal justification. Anyway, that took far too long for a clarification so I’ll stop. Oh yeah, and I’m fairly certain that off duty police are not required to carry firearms at all times though I suppose certain districts may vary. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/14 "2006-02-12T09:45:21Z")
> [@Dubious Weasle](#): > > I’m fairly sure the rules regarding protest [hidden away in the UCMJ] haven’t been changed though the atmosphere regarding protests has changed some. Now that said, the chain of command certainly does not support protest and there are numerous ways they have to discourage the activity. How far they go depends on the unit and how far the military member wants to go to insist on their rights; not always the wisest idea. > > For example, while a commander would be out of line saying that a military member cannot participate in lawful protest [out of uniform, anonymously] in _general_ he certainly could declare a _specific_ protest off limits by any number of means. The easiest way to do this would be to simply change the justification from a suppression of protest to a ‘force protection issue.’ > > Any number of similar methods could be used to forbid participation in a nuke or any other protest. Moreover, justification is not always needed because unless someone decides to stick their neck out, challenge the issue and make sure it goes to a court martial the command never needs to put forth their legal justification. > > Anyway, that took far too long for a clarification so I’ll stop. > > Oh yeah, and I’m fairly certain that off duty police are not required to carry firearms at all times though I suppose certain districts may vary. it wouldn’t make sense (eg like when you’re planning to get drunk), but I keep thinking I read it somewhere. I’ll use a lifeline, and ask my friend google once I can figure out what the question is… ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/15 "2006-02-12T12:55:15Z")
Officially, members of the armed services can participate in protests as long as they are not in uniform, don’t divulge military secrets and don’t appear to be speaking for the military. Unofficially [all kinds of bad stuff can and has](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050328/houppert) happened to people – even today ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/16 "2006-02-12T23:11:36Z")
**Brianjedi** , I think you missed this paragraph from your linked article: > [@](#): > > Township officials would not comment on the investigation because it is an internal personnel matter. However, they said that if Feder was paid for his performance, it would be a violation of the department’s policy that prohibits officers from moonlighting without departmental approval. As such they don’t seem to be aware he was getting paid for comedy club work. It may just be a figleaf, I’ll admit. But it does sound like a pretty effective figleaf. ---
**Author:** ![brianjedi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@brianjedi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianjedi)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-speech-vs-being-a-cop/343847/17 "2006-02-12T23:42:54Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > **Brianjedi** , I think you missed this paragraph from your linked article: > > As such they don’t seem to be aware he was getting paid for comedy club work. It may just be a figleaf, I’ll admit. But it does sound like a pretty effective figleaf. He wasn’t getting paid. Jim Norton performed at this month’s show and actually said “If they were paying Club Soda Kenny and not me I’m going to hurt someone,” because the comics that perform do it for free.