In a lawsuit involving a campaign employees who claimed he was fired in part for 'liking' the Facebook page of his boss' opponent, a Virginia appeals court ruled liking a page could be equated to supporting a candidate at a public rally, and is protected under the US Constitution.<\/p>\n
Clicking \"Like\" onFacebookis constitutionally protected free speech and can be considered the 21st century-equivalent of a campaign yard sign, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. <\/p>\n
Subscribe Today to the Monitor <\/p>\n
Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition <\/p>\n
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed a lower court ruling that said merely \"liking\" aFacebookpage was insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. <\/p>\n
Exactly what a \"like\" means if anything played a part in a case involving six people who say Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts fired them for supporting an opponent in his 2009 re-election bid, which he won. The workers sued, saying their First Amendment free speech protections were violated. <\/p>\n
Roberts said some of the workers were let go because he wanted to replace them with sworn deputies while others were fired because of poor performance or his belief that their actions \"hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office.\" One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, had \"liked\" theFacebookpage of Roberts' opponent, Jim Adams. <\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson in Norfolk had ruled in April 2012 that while public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, clicking the \"like\" button does not amount to expressive speech. In other words, it's not the same as actually writing out a message and posting it on the site. <\/p>\n
Jackson acknowledged that other courts have ruled thatFacebookposts are constitutionally protected speech, but he said in those cases there were \"actual statements.\" Simply clicking a button is much different and doesn't warrant First Amendment protection, he wrote. In his ruling, Jackson acknowledged the need to weigh whether the employee's speech was a substantial factor in being fired. But the judge wrote that the point is moot if \"liking\" something isn't constitutionally protected speech. <\/p>\n
The three-judge appeals court panel disagreed, ruling that \"liking a political candidate's campaign page communicates the user's approval of the candidate and supports the campaign by associating the user with it. In this way, it is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one's front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech.\" The case was sent back to the lower court. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Original post: In a lawsuit involving a campaign employees who claimed he was fired in part for 'liking' the Facebook page of his boss' opponent, a Virginia appeals court ruled liking a page could be equated to supporting a candidate at a public rally, and is protected under the US Constitution. Continue reading
\nLife, liberty, and 'liking': Court rules Facebook likes are free speech<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"