We have previously discussed the increasing trend toward monitoring and disciplining private and public employees for comments on social media. These cases raise difficult questions of free speech in our society. The most recent such case involves Leslie Anderson, a law clerk for a New Jersey judge who resigned after being suspended after she made comments on Facebook criticizing a state trooper who was killed in a crash with a deer. While some praised 24-year-old Anthony Raspa (left) as a hero, Anderson also expressed sympathy for the dead animal, saying “I agree that it is sad and heart-wrenching for the family members left to suffer the consequences of the trooper’s recklessness—especially for the deer family who lost a mommy or daddy or baby deer.”
It is not clear how Anderson viewed the trooper as reckless in the accident since such accidents can occur without any fault of the driver on many roads. Raspa and partner Gene Hong were patrolling on I-195 when their Ford Crown Victoria struck the deer early Saturday. The car careened off the road and hit a tree.
Anderson, a law clerk for Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Travis L. Francis was without question over-the-top in her Facebook posting: “Not that sad, and certainly not ‘tragic,’ Troopers were probably traveling at a dangerously high speed as per usual. Totally preventable. At least they didn’t take any of the citizens they were sworn to serve and protect with them.” She later added that the praise Raspa was receiving by other commenters for his service as “absurd” and “nonsensical” :
“The ‘victim’s’ employment as a state trooper is irrelevant to the circumstances, other than the fact that he injured a fellow trooper and destroyed state property as a result of his recklessness. He wasn’t running into a burning building or otherwise acting within the course of his employment at the time of the accident. The outcry and ‘thank yous’ are absurd, nonsensical, and completely unwarranted. There are people in this country and around the world dying for much less. There is nothing ‘tragic’ about this. Get over yourselves and your sense of entitlement, people . . .
Nonetheless, I agree that it is sad and heart wrenching for the family members left to suffer the consequences of the Trooper’s recklessness — especially for the deer family who lost a mommy or daddy or baby deer.”
The question is not whether these comments are wrong or offensive but the right of someone to engage in such a public debate without fear of retaliation.
I have previously written about concerns that public employees are increasingly being disciplined for actions in their private lives or views or associations outside of work. We have previously seen teachers (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) students (here, here and here) and other public employees (here and here and here) fired for their private speech or conduct, including school employees fired for posing in magazines (here), appearing on television shows in bikinis (here), or having a prior career in the adult entertainment industry (here).
The question for me is whether she used her court association, which does not appear to be the case. If Anderson was simply engaging in a public discourse, I am concerned that she would be punished for it. She was initially put on a paid suspension before she ultimately resigned under fire from the police association and others. President Chris Burgos insisted that the comments showed that Anderson couldn’t be impartial, but she was merely a law clerk, not the judge.
What do you think?
So now judges are mere props for the opinions of their minions? The Peter Principle defined.
I shed no tears about her being fired or suspended. What she wrote is off the wall and so radically biased with hatred towards cops, that her employment as a clerk in a court is totally inappropriate. She cannot be viewed as being impartial in her job with such comments and she needed to be gone. If she were working at KMart or something, then she should not be fired since she would be free to express whatever opinion she wished, as long as she did not use her employers name.
This is as bad as our Sen. Ted Cruz making Biden jokes while his son who served his country is being buried. It reflects the partisan hatred and bigotry that the GOP endorses and practices. I also fault the fact that the room full of GOPers got a charge out of that too. ALL of them are probably chickenhawks like Cruz.
Karen S
The fact that there are others who say and do abhorrent things does not become a justification for what this law clerk publicly posted regarding the death–yes, DEATH–of a police officer, while in the course of his employment. She holds a position as a law clerk, working for a judge. That position carries with it a certain degree of prestige and cache, and it also comes with an expected standard of conduct and behavior. She violated that standard with her blatant disregard of the officer’s life and service, ridiculing those who deemed him a hero and only expressing sympathy for the life of the dead deer. She crossed a line. Is she going to prison? No. She has freedom to voice her opinions, but an employer also has the right to find an employee an unsuitable fit for a position. Life is full of consequences. We all have choices. Choose wisely.
Perhaps it wasn’t, strictly speaking, her speech that caused her suspension, but her lack of judgment and insensitivity, which were demonstrated in her injudicious words.
Lexicat:
“Judge Travis is Assignment Judge for Middlesex County. When you work for the judiciary, many of your privileges to engage in conduct are curtailed. You can’t attend political functions, for example (even as a private citizen). Your speech and conduct outside of the office is subject to scrutiny as it may reflect on the judiciary.”
Thank you for the information. I did not know that. That does add another aspect to her comments.
“offensive, presumptuous and ignorant”
But true.
Law clerks do legal research, write opinions, try to persuade their judge as to the correct outcome on motions, etc. Depending on the judge, they can have quite a bit of influence. My concern would be that she would view the testimony of an officer applying for a search warrant, for example, or on a motion to suppress evidence, negatively and without credibility, because she has this overwhelming antipathy for police officers.
“Car accidents, involving deer that suddenly spring out into the road, are quite common in certain parts of the country. Inferring that recklessness was involved is irresponsible absent any real proof of that assumption.”
Agreed, it happened to me. I do wear glasses but to the best of my knowledge my peripheral vision is completely normal. I was driving on a modern multi lane road in moderate traffic, in daylight, with good visibility. I did not see the dear till it was directly in front of my vehicle. The damage was about $4,000 to the front end of my old vehicle. I was lucky the dear went under the vehicle and not over the hood and through the windshield.
Unless the former clerk knows something not mentioned in the article, there is no reason the assume the officer was at fault.
BTW, while the officer was discussing the incident with me and calling a tow truck a motorist pulled up and spoke to the officer. I was focused on my situation an wondered if a good Samaritan was offering to help in some way.
The officer came over and told me the other driver wanted to know if I would mind he took the deer? Under the circumstances I was sure he could make better use of the deer than I could. Within a few minutes he hoisted the deer in the back of his pick-up and was on his way. So you see, there is always a happy ending if you just look for it.
Edit: “one of the things that goes with the job is LOSS of a certain amount of personal freedom….”
“cop hater” was misspelled.
Since there has been a question raised that her personal antipathy towards cops could, in fact, impact her ability to do her job, could someone in the know explain what the judge’s clerk does?
It’s also been said before – extremism can rear its ugly head in other areas besides religion. When an animal lover escalates her feelings until she spews bile on a cop who died accidentally hitting a dear, then that is extremist.
I have had a dear spring onto the road from a sheer cliff here in CA. If it hadn’t boinged up the other side, I would have hit it before even touching the brake, it happened that fast. We’ve also had a trailer accident trying to avoid hitting a dog in the road, where we were lucky our horses survived. So it’s ignorant for anyone to assume the cop was at fault.
I agree that she’s an extremist, callous, and ungrateful for the fact that police officers routinely put their lives on the line to keep the public safe. My concern is policing private speech. Was her FB a private account or public? Was she associating herself or her opinion with the court? Why was a copy hater working in the justice system? Will her antipathy towards cops affect her job? What does a clerk actually do? I apologize for my ignorance of the court system.
Karen – the Department of Justice is monitoring the social media accounts of right-wingers. Why shouldn’t the court monitor its employees?
Just two other points. This was not a private conversation, nor an anonymous post. This was on a publicly viewable FB page, where she was apparently clearly identified by name. I don’t know whether her page identified her as an employee of the judiciary, but either way, she posted a widely-disseminated, publicly visible, comment under her name. She is not an anonymous worker-bee. Law clerks’ names are readily available to the public.
I was a prosecutor for many years. When you accept certain kinds of public employment, one of the things that goes with the job is a certain amount of personal freedom to do things that are not illegal in themselves, but disreputable because of the office you hold.
trooperyork:
Your comment is offensive, presumptuous and ignorant, but it does make your anonymity quite understandable, albeit cowardly.
That doesn’t work KarenS. It is the goal of the gay mafia to have NAMBLA members become Scout leaders. Haven’t you been paying attention.
Let me add a caveat:
The only time I think someone’s personal speech should impact their employment is if there is a safety issue, or some other serious concern about their ability to do their job.
For instance, if a Boy Scout Leader brags on a NAMBLA site about his access to kids.
Karen – if I were still employed I would not post on this blog.
Her comment was thoughtless, clearly not based on any actual knowledge of the event, and callous. But it is also very similar in tone to any number of comments posted on the Turley blog against police officers or political affiliations.
It was a stupid thing to say, but it was on her personal FB page. I disagree with firing her. If anyone could be fired for making such unfeeling comments, then this blog’s comment threads would be mostly populated with the unemployed and retired.
Cop haters are gonna hate.
She would not be out of place here. Maybe she could become a weekend contributor.
The officer, while on duty, was killed in an accident involving a deer. Another officer, while on duty, was injured. One was a death, the other an injury, sustained in the course of performing their respective duties to the community. Despite the manner in which police officers, in general, have been portrayed in the media, where they have been the subject of derision and scorn, these two officers were, and are, heroes. One lost his life and the other was injured in the course of protecting and serving the public. Car accidents, involving deer that suddenly spring out into the road, are quite common in certain parts of the country. Inferring that recklessness was involved is irresponsible absent any real proof of that assumption. Recently, a friend was driving home from a trip out of town and passed through a dark country road late at night. A deer suddenly jumped into the road and the two collided. His car was destroyed and he is lucky to have survived. There was no recklessness on his part. Accidents, like these, happen in seconds. The officer, probably, in an effort to save the life of the deer, swerved and hit the tree. Instead of receiving sympathy and praise, this b&$#h says that his death was inconsequential. Her sympathies are with the deer. This law clerk, who I assume is a lawyer, is an officer of the court. There is a code of conduct and standard of professionalism by which all officers of the court must abide. Her callous and despicable statements, with regard to this officer’s death and the meaninglessness of his public service, should’ve resulted in her immediate termination. Unfortunately, she was allowed to resign, thereby granting her some modicum of dignity to leave of her own volition. Too bad she didn’t see fit to bestow some dignity and respect upon the two officers.
Judge Travis is Assignment Judge for Middlesex County. When you work for the judiciary, many of your privileges to engage in conduct are curtailed. You can’t attend political functions, for example (even as a private citizen). Your speech and conduct outside of the office is subject to scrutiny as it may reflect on the judiciary.
The comments included not only insensitive (and stupid, IMO) statements, but assumptions about how the accident occurred: “Troopers were probably traveling at a dangerously high speed as per usual. Totally preventable.” Such reckless statements indicating a prejudgment without knowing ANY of the facts, reflects horrible judgment, at best, and the possibility of prejudice against police officer witnesses, at worst. She would be excused for cause from any jury in which a police officer is a witness, if she made such statements during jury selection, as indicating bias and prejudice against officer witnesses in a case.
This is much different from her expressing opinions about matters not likely to ever come before a court. She clearly lacks the maturity and judgment demanded of a law clerk to a judge, and frankly, those characteristics are pretty essential to the practice of law in general.