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?
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
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 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.
Yes, you can be fired for stating your opinion on an issue. Actually, you can be fired for any reason at all, as long as they make up a good reason for it.
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
Where do you get such crazy talk????
This is not true if you are talking about government positions, other than the military (why should they be expected to enjoy the freedoms they are supposedly dying for?).
The court really does appear to have held that "liking" a post isn't speech with sufficient content to even count as speech in the first place, and therefore the court didn't have to look into the question of whether it was really the reason for the person being fired.
That seems very bad and clearly wrong, since it would mean that these kinds of expressions of support could actually be regulated by the federal government, if the First Amendment doesn't apply at all. Expressing your support for something is definitely a kind of expression.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yeh, I messed that up. At-Will is standard operating procedure in the US though, which was my point.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
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
This is not true if you are talking about government positions, other than the military (why should they be expected to enjoy the freedoms they are supposedly dying for?).
As I am sure you know, the military holds a unique position in any government (they have the guns, and thus the ability to effect change unilaterally.) That's why we severely constrain what a soldier can do when representing himself as a soldier. In the old days, "crossing the Rubicon" was automatic treason, not an expression of freedom.
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.
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.
Damn right. Since when is volume or weight a deciding factor for First Amendment protection?
In my understanding, ALL speech is assumed to be free from censorship unless the government has a compelling case for limiting it, based on the overriding protection of others' safety or rights.
That a judge can simply say, "nope, not substantial enough" is deeply disturbing.
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."
I KNOW I shouldn't feed a troll, but....
Please tell me where this is. I think I'd like to live there. I've heard Alabama, but I've not found corroborating evidence to make that more than speculation.
Yes, in quite a few states. But you must first pass a rigorous test and are still held ultimately responsible for murder if you use too much force in a situation, not to mention the fact that the test weeds out quite a few people (shooting qualifications that is.) A concealed carry permit holder knows more about gun laws and the criminal code after taking the course than most of the general population does. But I can see where it might frighten you to know someone MIGHT be carrying something you don't know about... chicklets... breath mints, hot sauce packets from Taco Bell....
Yes. Those are from the 1st and 2nd amendments to our Constitution. Shows you've been reading.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Civil service laws override at-will.
If your state has no civil service laws protecting free speech, your state is de-facto 3rd world and sucks totally.
What state was this, Alabama or something?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
it just sounds like the court was friends with the sheriff and wanted to shuffle the issue under.
I mean, what the fuck? firing someone for showing support for a candidate and then denying that a fb like is a show of support? if it's enough to show a clear correlation that liking on fb == fired, then it's pretty clear that it was "speech" as far as the sheriff was concerned, since it prompted an action.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I am not a lawyer, but that's what I took from TFA.
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."
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.