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.'"

Burden of proof

[Hentes]

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.

Re:What kind of world...

[phantomfive]

In Eastern Virginia, apparently. This is in a district court, which if I am not mistaken, is the lowest federal court. In other words, this decision has no influence outside this case.

Re:Not surprising

[betterunixthanunix]

How about Alexander Shulgin, whose lab was raided and whose research license was revoked after he published a book on the drugs he had researched? He has continued to work, but is basically barred from performing any analysis on illegal drugs, which at this point includes whole families of drugs that he described in his books.

Re:Judges Can't Read

[shentino]

It's a free speech violation if the employer IS the government.

In this case, the incumbent sheriff who is an agent of the county.

Re:What kind of world...

[Anonymous Coward]

In capitalism, money is not a form of speech; it's property. Therefore, money as free speech is not a capitalistic idea.

Re:What kind of world...

[bryanp]

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.