Discussion on:

Using Facebook's Like button does not fall under 'protected speech'

So glad I live in Canada. What a circus!

We're not really all that much better. And in a lot of cases, we have LESS rights than the Americans!

This judge IS a nincompoop, though. 'Freedom of Speach' involves more than spoken or written words, it's about expressing ideas and opinions.

It's a free service with a posted privacy policy clearly in its own favor. Your content is by default easily accessible by all other participants. Why would you expect any participation or interaction to qualify as 'protected speech'?

and maybe it's not in my best interest to say it at all. But if I have a right to say something without being fired, I don't see why I wouldn't have that right if I said it by clicking a button, or by clicking 5 buttons on virtual keyboard, or tapping it out in morse code.

False assumption. You have the right to say something without fear of government censorship or prosecution, mostly. You don't have a right to say anything you want without potential employer repercussions, even if the government is your employer.

BINGO!!! I get so tired of people not understanding that! I live in an "Open Shop" state - that means, among other things, that my employer can fire me because he doesn't like the color of my hair! I can be fired at any time for anything (except race, gender, religion or age).

Can also fire you for age; they simply can't say so. I don't know what state your in, but in quite a few states you can be fired for certain expressions of gender, and in more than a few of those states they can say so.

The American people, living on their knees, have allowed this to happen and now are pssing and moaning about cop and teacher unions and the like.

are you going to give the Army private the right to tell his commander where to get off? Other than disobeying an illegal order, that is the limit! Police are in the same catagory. You gonna trust someone who doesn't have your back in a gun battle with thugs!

Unions are controlled by the Mafia and and run by fat-cats earning 50 times more then their are worth.

You're trolling. Silly me.

Since a business is PRIVATE property they also have the RIGHT to fire you based on race, gender, etc....the Civil Rights Act is based on a part of the US Constitution the CLEARLY says what STATES can and can not do,not private citizens!

the Civil Rights Act is constitutional. Deal with it.

What? Private companies can also be sued for discrimination. The rules govern the people and whatever entities they create. There may be some differences on how it's applied, but that's about it.

So say 'Joe' the private citizen wants to hire someone to paint their room and he doesn't choose a particular person for discriminating reason. That's pretty much a non-issue. But if private citizen Joe has a painting company and does the same thing he is subject to the same discrimination laws as ABC Corporation.

besides the fact that police departments are quasi military organizations that require respect for authority. Maybe you can complain inside that organization by going through channels but other than the union, you really DON'T have the right to thumb your nose at the chief in what amounts to insurrection.

The restrictions of the US Constitution is aimed at GOVERNMENT; not individuals!
Individuals have the right to discriminate (including rental property or private business) but government does not. The "Civil Rights Act" when used against private citizens or their property is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

...it had already been established they had the right to say it and they are quibbling over how they said it. Isn't only one of the six being denied that right because he used facebook?
Had the judge ruled that protected speech didn't apply here, I'd consider it reasonable. But by saying a facebook like button isn't protected speech, the judge is saying you don't have a right to use it.
The precedence this sets bothers me not because people are not allowed to insult their boss with impunity but because it gives the government power to implement laws and restrictions on what people can like on facebook and in similar expressions of speech.

The spirit of the law is being subverted by a technicality. The singled out person is being unfairly penalized for the method used to communicate his opinion.

You stink?

That's basically what this is about politically speaking.

If you made a point of doing at the public Christmas party rather than in the hall, wouldn't you expect repercussions? Especially considering that this is Virginia we are talking about?

A deputy sheriff is a public employee. He expressed support for a candidate for a publicly elected position and was fired for it. So, if you work for the Gov't in any way, shape, or form, you cannot support a candidate that is not an incumbent? That is pretty un-American as I see it.

When that deputy was hired, he did not sign away his right to use the electoral process to support the candidate of his choice. If the sheriff wants to be reelected, he should do it by being a better sheriff, (or even a better campaigner,) not by taking hostile action against anyone who dares to supports the opposition.

Someone a few posts up called union bosses Mafia. What this sheriff did seems pretty mafia mentality to me.

particularly in a uniformed role, voluntarily gives up certain rights by virtue of their employment. The limitations usually prevent activities or behavior while in uniform that may give the appearance of conflict of interest or of government endorsement.

The question in this case is not whether they can support the sheriff's electoral opponent, but whether they can express that support publicly.

of these deputies was turned away at the poll. They campaigned, they voted and their candidate lost. Virginia is at-will and there is specific code that mandates the reappointment of deputies following the election.

I'm not saying what happened was fair, right or even wrong, it just IS.They would have had a better chance going after the code in question as unconstitutional.

Regardless it comes off to me as pretty strange that deputies wouldn't be aware of the political ramifications of their actions as laid out by the law they are supposed to enforce...

"Protected speech" is theoretically self expression protected from government punishment.

"Speech" need not only be words, they can also be actions- a classic example burning the flag.

Don't know the real story, but either the author or the judge is an idiot (or maybe both).

If it was enough self expression to be fired for- it was self expression worth protecting.

Oh, and by the way "Like" IS a word...

I don't consider the judge an idiot. He said the act of clicking "Like" is too vague to be defined as protected speech. He didn't rule it wasn't speech or self expression.

Would you consider the word "fire" as protected speech?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes jr., wrote

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic

Burning the flag is TREASON and I will quickly shoot anyone I see doing it.

Speech is WORDS, not action.

Burning a patterned rectangle of cloth is burning a rectangle of cloth. If I burn a Union Jack it doesn't mean I'm against Queen and country at all.

The intent behind the action is all important. If I burned that same flag as an expression of my treason then yeah, be angry because I'm a treasonous git. The same action, two different intents. One is an expression of 'I'm cold' (or even 'I don't need this flag') the other is an expression of my political will.

Everything has a context as this discussion about the Judge's ruling surely proves.

Not sure your argument works here. I don't think a treasonist would be tried differently than a patriot for the act of flag burning. They would have to commit an act of treason (assuming your country doesn't include flag burning as treason. It may increase penalties though. Now if you harm someone in an act of self preservation vs. intending to harm, intent is front and center of the case.

If pressing a particular Like button conveys essentially the same message as what the others did then the method of expressing oneself should not be the issue.

You seem to be suggesting that it's enshrined in US law that to burn a flag is a criminal act. If it is already then you'd be right - the intent wouldn't matter at all. Breaking the law is breaking the law.

If I've fallen afoul of not knowing the laws of your nation my apologies. here in the UK we have more than a few nonsensical or archaic laws ourselves so I could well believe something as daft as that could actually be a law in a 1st world country.

My opinions are entirely my own and not those of my Monarch, government or fellow British citizens

They've all been shot down as violations of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.

As I stated in an earlier post, if you're going to prosecute flag burners, do it for not having a burn permit.

Not sure I came across correctly in my comment... Intent has its place here, I just didn't see how that particular example fit. Sorry that didn't translate too well. Flag burning is protected under free speech here.

If the intent of the button pusher was proven as substantially different than the others targeted, such as defamation of character, I could see a reason to treat the button pusher differently. But that does not appear to be the case.

BTW, We've had our fair share of daft laws too.

Burning the flag is an expression of opinion. If prosecuted at all, it should be for a misdemeanor "burning without a permit" or "inciting to riot."

But don't shoot anybody. If you do, your posted statement here constitutes pre-meditation, which makes it murder one...

shooting their countrymen over....
The symbol isn't the idea; and neither is the effigy the man. Replace your comment's "flag" with "koran", and "treason" with "blasphemy" to see whose reactionary social values you''re championing.

Burning a flag is one of two ways I know to respectfully lay it to rest (the other being burial).

Even if I saw someone being disrespectful to a flag I would never hurt them for expressing themselves. We are Americans, and that is the way we need to roll.

You do realize that the proper way to dispose of a flag is to burn it, don't you? Duh!

The founding fathers committed treason by declaring independence. Would you have shot G.W. for fighting for independence?

I support the flag because it represents the freedom and strength of the people of the USA. When it represents the lack of freedom to vote for the candidate of your choice, or to support the candidate of your choice, or to press the "like" button on Facebook regarding the candidate of your choice, it no longer represents the USA. It then represents a few corrupt people in power, (and those lackeys mindlessly following them. That could be you...)

So, do you protect a piece of cloth, or the freedom and values it is supposed to represent?

(Personally, as a form of speech, I believe flag burning doesn't accomplish anything constructive. It is supposed to be a statement, but it is not getting people to talk about issues, it only gets people to talk about flags and fires and hatred. It closes off avenues of discussion, and that is the opposite of speech. Speech, ya' know, that thing that is supposed to be free around here?)

You can 'say' anything you want. Free Speech does not protect you from consequences nor does it guarentee anonymity. Look at Senead O'Connor's comment about the Pope, and the Dixie Chick's mention of Bush.

"Protected" does not mean "private"-- it means you should not be censored or arrested for it by the GOVERNMENT. Is the person's BOSS acting as the government in this scenario? No.

the person's boss is a sheriff. Law enforcement is government if you ask me.

He was not arrested by the Sheriff. He was fired by his boss.

The "Like" button on Facebook would be the electronic equivalent to putting a "Vote for Person X" sign in your front yard. These are government positions, and the first amendment says government won't interfere with your right to voice your opinion. If that was the *honest* reason for the firing, then I'm in complete disagreement with the judge.

This little synapse doesn't really give me enough info to form an opinion. If they did it at home, from their personal account - I believe that's their right. If they did it on government time or accounts, then i believe they deserve to get screwed.

So what was the reason they were fired? Liking someobody via the facebook like button, doesn't mean you actually say anything, ok, so then what were they fired for if they didn't say anything?

So ... Writing a check to the opponent's campaign WOULD qualify as protected speech, even though nothing would be actually said ...

getting fired because of a stated opinion is harsh but that's a subjective matter. If I prefer manager X to Manager Y I don't expect my job to be under threat but if I come out and say that I'm for mandatory Class A drugs at lunch breaks rather than for cigarette breaks I fully expect to be taken to task.

There's clearly a greater context missing from this story so I can't honestly say one way or another wither this was the right ruling. What I will say is this:

The American Constitution does not compensate for common sense. The Internet (and social media in particular) is not really private - your thoughts, feelings and opinions are transmitted across a public space, even if you only intend for that information to be consumed by a small set of people or for the origin of the opinion to remain anonymous. You may have the right to that opinion but other people also have the right to take offense at that opinion. This can lead to further consequences (as in the story).

By all means exercise free speech and enshrine the right to free speech in law (this is a great thing) but think it through before you excercise that right. Yes, you should be able to say what you like (or 'like' what you see) as long as you aren't harming anyone else but in reality no law can protect you from what other people may think about you for the opinions you hold or the things you do on the internet. Consequences have many forms, not all of which as obvious as being fired.

Or, to put it succinctly, engage brain before posting to Internet.

Now excuse me while I set up a FaceBook campaign that could change the face of cigarette breaks all over the world. *Knock knock* Who's that at the door? The Police? You want to talk to me about my endorsement of what?! Blimey, you were quick - I haven't even told anyone my plans yet. Saw it on the Internet, you say. Oh

(BTW, for those of you who have difficulty with reading emotion in text blocks, I was joking about the drugs at breaks thing. Comedy to try and illustrate a point. I have never been a drug user and wouldn't endorse such a plan myself. I would, however, defend your right to state your support such a plan.....but you'd have to take the consequences of your opinions. As if to illustrate my point again.)

Doesn't this case violate the workers' rights and privileges under electoral law? They have the right to campaign for the candidate of their choice even if their manager intends to vote for someone else.

Now there's a point that deserves some consideration - though I don't believe his 1st amendment rights were violated, electoral law may well be an issue here...

So if I donate $100K to his opponent and don't say a word is that protected or not? We now live in a time where money is speech and check marks are something else but not protected? WTF.

Another in the long line of reasons that I would hate to live or work in that sorry excuse for a country. Land of the free indeed.