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.'"

5 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.

  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. 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.