DOJ Tells Ferguson Cops To Stop Wearing 'I Am Darren WIlson' Bracelets

[LTX]

72. Police officers on duty do not share the same slate of first amendment rights

as non-governmental civilians. This has long been the case.

The determination of what speech is protected in the public employment context involves a two-part analysis. First, the speech must address a “matter of public concern,” and then the “interest of the employee in speaking must be weighed against the interest of the State, as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” In other words, if the speech addresses a personal matter, it’s not protected by the First Amendment. If it’s a public matter, the court must balance the employee’s interest in expression against the government’s interest in effectively discharging its duties.

Courts will inquire as to “the point of the speech in question: Was it the employee’s point to bring wrongdoing to light? Or to raise other issues of public concern because they are of public concern? Or was the point to further some purely private interest?” However, just because a police officer speaks out on a topic that may be deemed one of public concern does not automatically render their speech protected. The content and form of the speech, along with the surrounding circumstances, including the officer’s reasons for their remarks, are important factors in determining whether the officer’s speech is a matter of public concern.

In the case at hand, it would have to determined whether the bracelets are a form of personal speech, or speech addressing a public concern. I find it difficult to formulate any argument rendering the bracelets a form of speech addressing a public concern. Hence, I can only conclude at present that the bracelets are not protected speech, and police officers can be prevented from wearing them, whether by federal or local edict.