Am I the only one, or is it obvious as it seems?

I don't know if you've been following the whole Gates scandal that has erupted onto the political scene in the past few weeks, but I have, up to a certain point. Once the Beer Summit was held at the White House, in which the arresting officer, Obama, Biden and Gates sat with a carefully prepared beer for each to discuss the scandal and move past it, most of the controversy seems to have subsided; except for this one little story about a cop in the Boston PD who referred to Gates as "a banana-eating jungle monkey."

Barret, the officer who used the phrase in an e-mail in response to the Boston Globe's portrayal of the scandal, insists that he is not a racist (and I'm sure he has a best friend who is black, as most bigots insist) and used the phrase to illustrate Gates's actions, but not to attack Gates as a person. Um, okay.

Since sending the offensive e-mail, Officer Barret was suspended with pay for his words. Since his suspension, he has filed a lawsuit, citing his right to the freedom of speech under the coveted first amendment.

This raises a few questions for me, morally and legally. Should Barret have actually been suspended for his words? I believe that yes, all people do have the right to express their thoughts, no matter how offensive they are, and no matter how much I may disagree. Of course, I may be a minority in that belief. But, should he have been suspended for other reasons? Technically, since he was an employee of the city and is bound by the city's regulations as an employee, the city has the right to suspend his job, as they are the proprietors of the computer and his e-mail account. Had he actually sent the e-mail through a private account at his house, he may not be in the position he is under now. Had there been any repercussions for sending out the e-mail from his home, he may have a case, and would be protected under the first amendment. This would be an interesting case if it went all the way to the Supreme Court. I would like to see how it turns out. I personally don't see how the case would have any standing. He would have to prove that he has been harmed as a result of his suspension. He has been given pay, and the city acted within their rights, if the regulations clearly state that such actions are grounds for suspension or termination.

But here's what I find to be incredibly ironic. At the end of the article about Barret on CNN.com, Barret states he is

"'not a racist but I am prejudice [sic] toward people who are stupid and pretend to stand up and preach for something they say is freedom but it is merely attention because you do not get enough of it in your little fear-dwelling circle of on-the-bandwagon followers.""

Let me see if I have this right. He isn't a racist, but he is prejudiced against people who beg for attention under the guise of freedom. I wonder if that will be his lawyer's defense should his case go to court.