Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook 'Likes' Aren't Protected Speech

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-like-a-fire-in-a-crowded-theater dept.

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.'"

11 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. What kind of world... by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On what planet is money a form of speech but indicating your support for something not?

    1. Re:What kind of world... by mykos · · Score: 5, Funny
      Planet AMURICA.

      Corporations are people too, so suck it, you godless socialist atheist communist fascist Islamist!

    2. Re:What kind of world... by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One which will not be upheld if it makes it to the supreme court.

    3. Re:What kind of world... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would be Jamaica.

      "I Liked the sheriff
      but I did not Like his deputy..."

    4. Re:What kind of world... by bryanp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice oversimplifaction. Money is not and has never been declared to be free speech in the US. Spending your money to support people who advocate ideas you believe in has been declared a form of protected expression of your political ideas, broadly lumped under the freedom of speech.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
  2. Decision erodes rights by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Burden of proof by Hentes · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Burden of proof by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are disadvantages to that. I'm specifically thinking of the flexibility of the job market: In the course of being edged out by competitors or a changing market, an employer might hold on to their workforce longer than they should out of fear of being sued for wrongful dismissal. That makes the entire economy less capable of adjusting to disruptive technologies and global market realities.

      That's a feature, not a bug. Entrepreneurs are precisely the people who should bear the risks of the market, since they also get the profits. This way employees have more job security and employers have a motivation to train their employees rather than fire them and hire new ones. Both of these help stabilize the economy.

      Also, there is no such thing as "market reality". The "market" is a purely social construct and as such can be altered at will. Just look at the financial industry if you don't believe me: trillions of dollars can vanish overnight, yet nothing in the physical reality changes.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Burden of proof by happyhamster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are not "disadvantages", but the way decent society should work. The utterly unethical, immoral treatment of workers in "right-to-throw-you-out-on-a-whim" states as warm spare parts has to stop. It's not producing a healthy society I'd like my kids to grow up in. Economy is important, but it should not take precedence over a healthy society where most workers have stable careers and can afford to have families and raise children in economic security.

  4. Re:What the hell? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. "Like" on facebook can be a misleading term. by Mysteryprize · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.