Slashdot Mirror
Facebook 'Likes' Aren't Protected Speech
An anonymous reader writes "In what may win awards for the silliest-sounding lawsuit of the year, a case about whether Facebook 'likes' qualify for free speech protection under the First Amendment has ended in a decisive 'no.' In the run-up to an election for Sheriff, some of the incumbent's employees made their support for the challenger known by 'liking' his page on Facebook. After the incumbent won re-election, the employees were terminated, supposedly because of budget concerns. The employees had taken a few other actions as well — bumper stickers and cookouts — but they couldn't prove the Sheriff was aware of them. The judge thus ruled that 'merely "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed within the record.'"
On what planet is money a form of speech but indicating your support for something not?
So you if you like the Facebook page of a person or organization your employer disagrees with you can legally be fired?
Considering that the federal government has caused researchers to lose their jobs over entire books their have published, it is hardly surprising that such a minute form of expression would not be considered "protected."
Palm trees and 8
when the lawsuit was filed? Unless the sheriff captured a screenshot...
Oh, great. I just "liked" a peanut butter dipped in sugar fan page, and now I'm sure that the government and/or insurance companies will use that against me. It's getting to the point where you just shouldn't do anything or say anything. As Larry David said, "You just can't leave the house any more."
You can be fired for your Facebook likes, but since they don't count as free speech theoretically this means the government could regulate them.
It's an unfortunate decision that's likely to become a precedent for future cases where your free speech will be further restricted.
I'm convinced. This is pretty clearly a violation of free speech. It's not the "like" that's being silenced. It's the political support for the other guy.
I don't know about America but here in Europe this is one of the rare cases when the burden of proof is on the accused. The employer has to prove that the justification he gave when firing those people was valid. In a case like this, he would have to prove that there wasn't enough money. If he fails to do that, for example because he hired new people to fill the empty positions, then he loses.
The problem here is that even if 'likes' were considered free speech, it would be almost impossible to prove that they were fired because of that.
It is the courtâ(TM)s conclusion that merely "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.
This has got to be the silliest ruling I've heard in a while, it's at least as protected as putting your signature on a petition. You're endorsing a group or organization or person and what they stand for.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
First of all, are Sheriff's dept. employees granted the right to speak their opinion on a Sheriff's election without fear of losing their jobs?
One could argue that they either should or shouldn't: Pro would be they should be civil servants not beholden to any one political officeholder or another. Con would be that if the Sheriff were elected on a platform, he would need his own people in there to implement his goal.
Anyway, if Sheriff's employees do have a right to protected free speech in general, it boggles the mind as to how a Facebook like is not speech.
I'm hoping the judge didn't say that a Facebook Like doesn't make use of the vocal chords, and hence, it's not "speech"?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
If it can be proven that there is any pattern to the layoffs corresponding to the Sheriff's political opposition, he should be sued for the obvious civil rights violation.
For a lot of money, and thrown in jail, too, if possible.
expandfairuse.org
Today, "'merely "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection"
Ant then tomorrow, "merely saying 'no' is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection"
Goodbye dissent.
is the enemy
Along with anyone else who's enough of a douche to participate in the circle jerk of "liking" things on facebook.
So i guess the moral of this story is don't "like" anything...
thrown in jail, too, if possible.
But who will arrest... the sheriff? Badum-CH!
It's nice and catchy, but the vast majority of this decision was centered around the plaintiffs not producing nearly enough evidence to assert their claims. Most courts would consider the statements about the likes to be dicta - authoritative, but not binding.
This is a decision from the US District Court of Eastern Virginia> there are two more apeal levels to go; US Court od Appeals and The Supreme Court of the United States. This is going to be appealed mainly due to the SCOTUS taking a very broad view of what is protected speech when political office is involved.
Where do you get such crazy talk????
Fortunately not all states' laws are the same. New Hampshire has one of the strongest public employee freedom of expression statutes in the country.
Liberty in your lifetime
You got your terms mixed up. Right-to-work means membership to a union cannot be a requirement for the job. At-will employment is where either party can terminate the relationship without giving a reason.
When questioned by reporters, the judge responded, "My cousin^H^H^H^H^H^H The sheriff is a hard working public servant who had to make some tough budget choices."
-- Will program for bandwidth
"...And what's more, being a miner, as soon as you're too old and tired and ill and sick and stupid to do your job properly, you 'ave to go. But the very opposite applies to judges – so all in all, I'd rather have been a judge than a miner..." -- Monty Python
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
If you want to follow any discussion taking place on a facebook page, you usually have to "Like" it first. The word implies that you are supporting it, but you might just do it for the sake of curiosity, not to show how you genuinely feel about a subject.
... because that tells me the judge just doesn't want to hear both sides in a real courtroom where we can see what the real case is about. Maybe he's on the take? No proof of that, but situations like that do get lots more summary judgments. It does sound suspicious, to me.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
At this rate, they'll start making it illegal to single stupid jingles from 80's era tv adverts.
What a Like is is showing support for something, equivalent to wearing a button, or protesting. This is a disasterous decision.
It is very simple to verify if the firings were due to budget choices; are the positions open or have other people been hired to fill them? If they have been filled thatn the reason for firing is not budget constraints and the Sheriff lied.
Don't forget to like posts on Facebook!
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3635428/Likes/
Some places don't allow government managers to direct the political activities of government employees.
So would getting fired by liking someone running against your boss be the same as getting discharged for wall posting your dislike of your commander? The problem isn't a matter of free speech - we are all free to say or post whatever we want on Facebook, it seems the issue is when our personal opinions become valid reasons for someone's termination. Instead of trying to put this kind of stuff under 'free speech' shouldn't we be trying it under 'discrimination and retaliation' laws?
n/t (dnrta)
Period.
Everyone is obsessed about whether a politician is a republican or a democrat. The D or R is king. If the D is in office and you're a democrat or vice versa then most voters will never vote for the opposing party to get rid of him.
That's what you need to be willing to do on these matters.
Make it clear to the politicians that this is an issue that will cost you elections. And they'll respect it.
Short of that. They don't care.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And often deputy sheriffs serve at the pleasure of the Sheriff. As such, I believe that it is possible to fire them for any reason. Ultimately it depends on local regulations. Dick move, but politics is full of assholes who make dick moves.
I don't think freedom of speech protects your job, it keeps you from getting jailed. Ozzie Guillen just got suspended for making the Castro comments. Granted, he still has a job, but he lost income.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Something about this story sounds completely backward in every way, and maybe someone here can explain if it's the judge, the writer/editor, or just me who is sorely confused.
First of all, insufficient to count as free speech? Have we really come so far from not only the letter but even the spirit of the First Amendment that only certain special classes of speech deserve protection from censorship, rather than (as the law literally states) all speech being completely protected, or at least (as courts have long interpreted) only certain egregiously dangerous speech, such as credible incitement to violence, deserving censorship? Is it really now no longer "is this dangerous enough to censor it?" but "is this acceptable enough to permit it?"
Second of all, who is censoring who here? Someone got fired because their boss didn't like their opinion. In a private business (see next sentence before you jump on this) that's perfectly fine; freedom of association and all that, I don't have to work for people I don't like and I shouldn't have to let people I don't like work for me either; I've quit a job in part because of the owner's political expressions, why should the other way around be any different. In this case it's a public agency so I can see some stricter rules for hiring and firing being required, but nevertheless, in any case, this is a wrongful termination issue, not a free speech issue. This is not the government telling you "you are not allowed to say X"; this is an employer saying "we won't employ people who support Y". How the hell did this become an issue of free speech at all?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
n/t
"Free speech" protection protect the speech itself and affect ability of government to keep the speaker from distributing it. In itself, a record of clicking on a button in a privately run web site is not worthy of protection. Facebook distributing the summary of those record is protected, however Facebook is not the party being threatened or attacked. So no "free speech" issues are involved here.
On the other hand, selective termination of employees who expressed their opinions and supported a competing election campaign, likely is a violation of several labor laws. Even if Sheriff's office by any chance is exempt from labor laws, employees may be able to prove that the cause of termination is fraudulent, intended to conceal the true reason behind termination.
I think, it's extremely stupid to try to try to use "free speech" protection (that exists to protect all speech, no matter how true, false or opinionated), when the real issue is protection of a person from private retaliation through public channels, especially when deception of the public is involved.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Getting a bunch of people to sign a petition or approve of a policy is pretty close to liking some random thing.
I still don't understand why it's so hard to provide free anonymous speech.
It's just a matter of time before the US acts like the other dictatorships and jails people for liking something. Oh, you liked that? Off to Gitmo with you!
from corporations is free speech? this country gets more messed more by the millisecond.
I was once told of a NATO meeting where an American general looked round at his audience and said, in effect "I expect you all realise that if there was major civil unrest in your countries you would have to take over the Government." A British officer got up and said "Actually, old boy, we don't "realise" any such thing and if you continue talking like this we will all walk out".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
However, I think the GP's "rigorous test" can possibly be summarised as:
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I think that free speech protection must have some limits. I don't think that my employee that openly supports my opponent will work well for me. And I think that an employee should have some basic loyalty to his employer. Critique is ok, but openly stating support for a competitor is not. And after all that employee wasn't "terminated" in Terminator sense.
How is this any different from telling a pollster that you approve of something? It's basically the same thing, and if stating one's opinion on a political poll is not protected speech under the 1st amendment, I don't know what is. The judge doesn't seem to have thought this through. Note that arguments about whether employers should or shouldn't be able to fire people based on their beliefs are pretty much irrelevant here, because if the judge says this is unprotected speech and the ruling is upheld, the precedent would apply in any situation, not just employment disputes. Unprotected is unprotected. Hopefully a higher court will revisit the issue and overturn the ruling.
Going onto someone's Facebook page and typing "I endorse this person and believe in what they represent" would have been enough to fall under free speech protection AND would have been grounds for termination... while clicking "like" does NOT fall under free speech protection, and is still grounds for termination.
The path is clear.
Boycott "Like" button. Shorthand notes are next.
Yet it is enough to cause someone to not get a job offer.
Little different than signs on a lawn.
Use G+ circles if you must say anything.
"I like x", and as such should be considered speech, no matter how narrow the possibility of expression through this means of a like-button is.