In the case of City of San Diego, California et al. v. John Roe (2004), a police officer was terminated from his position for selling sexually explicit videos of himself on eBay while wearing a uniform resembling that used by the San Diego Police Department and using an alias similar to its acronym. The officer sued, claiming violation of his First Amendment rights as he argued these activities were done off-duty and did not interfere with his job performance. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city stating that public employees are subject to certain restrictions when their speech or conduct interferes with their employer's operations or affects public perception about their ability to perform duties professionally. In this case, it was determined that Roe’s actions discredited both him and the police department thus justifying termination.

In the dissenting opinion for City of San Diego, California et al. v. John Roe, Justice Stevens argued that the city had not provided sufficient justification to fire an employee based on his off-duty conduct which did not affect his job performance or violate any specific policy. He emphasized that public employees should not be forced to surrender their First Amendment rights and that a government employer's interest in maintaining its reputation does not outweigh an individual's right to free expression when it doesn't interfere with professional responsibilities. Furthermore, he contended that Roe’s activities were unrelated to any sexual misconduct at work and there was no evidence suggesting they would negatively impact his ability as a police officer or harm the department’s reputation among reasonable members of the community.