News: The Columbus Police Department reassigned patrol officer Susan Purtee (60) to a desk job after she made several racist videos (along with her sister, Barbara Gordon-Bell), railing against Jews and blacks. (More here) The Police Department is considering whether further action should be taken against the officer. The two sisters posted the racist videos on their personal website, thepatriotdames.com. They were also posted on YouTube under the name “subie sisters.” You can view the YouTube videos here.
Below is one of their anti-Semitic videos, which they describe as follows: “The Subie Sisters explore the thinking of the present day Jew and why that might contribute to the destruction of American society.”
Warning: the video contains racist, hate speech. I debated whether to include this video, but I think readers need to know what kind of content it contains.
Analysis: I was interviewed yesterday by a local radio station about whether the officer can be disciplined or whether her speech is protected by the First Amendment. The short answer is: Under Supreme Court case law, I believe the Columbus Police Department can discipline Officer Purtee — even fire her — without any First Amendment problem. (I can’t speak to the City’s internal employee regulations or code of conduct.)
The test under the First Amendment for speech by a public employee is twofold: (1) “Whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” and (2) if so, “whether the government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public,” such as restricting “speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951, 1958 (2006).
In this case, it’s at least debatable whether the speech in the videos involve a “matter of public concern.” If they don’t, then there’s no First Amendment claim for the public employee. But even if they do involve matters of public concern, the government has discretion to restrict speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations. In this case, the Columbus Police Department would have a very strong basis to conclude that racially incendiary videos disseminated by a police officer — even while off-duty — can undermine the public’s trust and confidence in the police department, and in the fair and equal administration of law enforcement. Courts would give a lot of leeway to the police department in this kind of case.
September 3, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I can’t believe I’m the only person to snark on Jews III
September 4, 2007 at 12:05 am
I tried to get them noticed by Utube and had a difficult time doing so. If your the one who did it,….good for you.
Haters like this should not be on Utube and definitely not on a Columbus OH government list.