A judge in Virginia makes using social media a little more complicated.
You know that awkward moment on Facebook where you find out your boss is a huge fan of the Yankees, and you just clicked the "Like" button on the Red Sox page? Those moments might get a little more tense, as a recent case involving a sheriff who fired employees over supposedly liking an opponent's Facebook page ended with a federal judge ruling that liking a Facebook page doesn't qualify for First Amendment protection.
The story goes like this: During the 2009 elections, Sheriff B.J. Roberts of Hampton, Virginia supposedly learned that a handful of his employees were supporting one of his opponents, Jim Adams, by clicking the "like" button on Adam's Facebook page as well as attending a barbeque fundraiser. In response, Roberts called a department meeting, advising the staff to get on the "long train" with him rather than give their support to someone else, and then after winning re-election, Roberts canned several employees, including those who supported Adams.
The workers believed that their Facebook "Like" was the reason behind why they got axed, and sued Roberts for violating their First Amendment Rights under the not-so-unreasonable belief that a Facebook "Like" is protected by free speech and they were unlawfully terminated. Unfortunately, U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson disagreed, and stated that while Facebook Posts could be considered protected speech, the simple act of "liking" a page isn't enough to count since you don't actually make any written statements when you do so.
"Simply liking a Facebook page is insufficient," Judge Jackson said in his ruling. "It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. "
So what does this all mean? Well, that's what legal scholars across the country are trying to figure out while the dismissed workers file an appeal. In the meanwhile though, you might want to be a little more conscious about what you do on Facebook until it all gets settled. Or just be like me, and stick to playing games.
That is absolute bullshit. Freedom of Speech protects far more than "written statements". If motorcyclists can make the case for not wearing a helmet = freedom of expression than I have no idea why expressing that you agree with something, even if it is as simple as a Facebook "like", can't also share the same protection. Its hilarious how hypocritical and stupid our system really is.
I find facebook useful for chatting with some friends and as a place to pool news updates that I'm interested in but if I ever getc a job at a place that interested in my facebook page I'm just going to delete the thing. They can't use something against me that isn't there.
Would you expect a Senator or Representative to hang onto staff who give a Facebook like to their political opponents? No. This was a pure sign of disrespect for the person they were working for and zero support. Sheriff BJ Roberts has to expect full support from his deputies when things hit the fan, and this juvenile bit on Facebook showed they have zero support for the guy. It isn't just about bruised feelings. The Sheriff's Department is law enforcement, responsible for the same risks the Police go through. If you don't have strong support from your deputies or officers, then you are liable to be left out in the cold and killed during any action. As far as I am concerned, those people would have been better off quitting their jobs, giving their vote to the opposing guy, and then see if he wins and hires them back into the department. Otherwise they basically just stabbed their boss in the back.
Sis: And that is why you never make a facebook using your real name.
And that is why you don't use facebook at all.
Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.
Yeah, my form of social networking (a video game forum) is better than yours!
I don't understand why you would use a video game forum either. Do people really need some sort of internet service that provides "social networking"? I suppose I'll just never get it. For all I care you can have your bookfaces and tweeters and whatever, but don't push it on me. I'm sick of all the websites wanting me to register or login with a facebook account >.>
Sis: And that is why you never make a facebook using your real name.
And that is why you don't use facebook at all.
Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.
It's not like tons of people use it to talk and stay in contact with people whom otherwise they may of never spoken to again. Nope, definitely the most useless thing ever conceived.
Sis: And that is why you never make a facebook using your real name.
And that is why you don't use facebook at all.
Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.
It's not like tons of people use it to talk and stay in contact with people whom otherwise they may of never spoken to again. Nope, definitely the most useless thing ever conceived.
But if Facebook is the only means for you to have contact with the person, what's the point? She/he is nothing more than a random acquintance that you don't give a flying fuck about. If the person would mean something to you, surely you would find another way than Facebook, or at least meet at some point.
I admit I had a little bit of a problem reading through the statement because it's a little convoluted and I don't give much of a rat's ass about research (woo!).
That said, if I understand this correctly, what the fuck, man? Not even the strictly Facebook part, where the fuck is the problem in people not all having voted for you? Jesus, the paranoia.
Still pretty dumb though, but then I don't know if liking something on Facebook does constitute the Right to Free Speech verbatim but wouldn't it consist of stating an opinion which firing someone over is usually frowned upon?
that's some bull shit right there, some one should not be fired for 'liking' something on face book, or anywhere really, i hope the people fired get their apple and the guy that fired them gets canned for being a childish prick
Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.
It's not like tons of people use it to talk and stay in contact with people whom otherwise they may of never spoken to again. Nope, definitely the most useless thing ever conceived.
But if Facebook is the only means for you to have contact with the person, what's the point? She/he is nothing more than a random acquintance that you don't give a flying fuck about. If the person would mean something to you, surely you would find another way than Facebook, or at least meet at some point.
So instead of one perfectly functional way of keeping in contact, I'm supposed to use another equally functional way of doing so because the first way is somehow? I have friends I keep in contact only through steam, same argument; do I suddenly not give a flying fuck about them, despite the fact that steam is a worse way of keeping in contact if you don't play games with them? And how exactly am I supposed to meet at some point with someone whom I can't contact? I can use FB to contact someone arranging to meet them for example. It also lets everyone at my uni doing the same degree keep in contact, discuss and help each other, et cetera.
Your argument is incredibly arbitrary, and amounts to "FB is terrible, ergo every friend you have on FB isn't a real friend". This may apply to people who have 960 friends, but for a lot of people it's incredibly helpful.
Use facebook if that's what you want, I just fail to see how it would be the only way to contact the person or how some people can't seem to keep track of their friends without it.
I just can't see the value of the service from my perspective, and my annoyance towards it comes from how it's everywhere nowadays.
Don't use your real name, don't let your boss see or access your profile, and don't 'like' random shit because nobody gives a fuck what you thumbs up. Simple.
Use facebook if that's what you want, I just fail to see how it would be the only way to contact the person or how some people can't seem to keep track of their friends without it.
I just can't see the value of the service from my perspective, and my annoyance towards it comes from how it's everywhere nowadays.
Well, if I have someone on FB, why use another system? Better to have everyone on FB than everyone through 5 different ways of communication. It's a convenient service that a lot of people use, making it an incredibly convenient way of staying in contact. I for example have no use for my phone; I'm either at my computer, doing exercise, or at a uni lecture, thus there is no situation where I'd pick the thing up. I'm not trying to make you use it; if you can keep in contact with everyone you want to without it, more power to you. Just that facebook is far from useless.
The fact that you can like everything under the sun outside of FB can get annoying though, and it is rather worthless.
Sis: And that is why you never make a facebook using your real name.
Damn right. I change my FB name once every few weeks personally and don't tell any of my co-workers that I'm on (except for those few co-workers who I befriended before leaving the place of employment). This whole thing stinks of BS.
Sis: And that is why you never make a facebook using your real name.
And that is why you don't use facebook at all.
Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.
I'm with you on this. I've never been happier than during that wonderful moment when I deleted my Facebook account.
Sadly Facebook is a wonderful tool for a lot of reasons, mostly because it presents the easiest way to reach the largest possible number of idiotic sheep people in one go. Brilliant for corporate entities and advertsing. Not brilliant if you tend to avoid people, like myself.
Yeah they had every right to *like* his opponent, and HE had every right to fire them for it. Just like he would have had every right to fire them he found out they were insulting him on Facebook: it's not a matter of freedom of speech, it's a matter of insubordination.
It's not like tons of people use it to talk and stay in contact with people whom otherwise they may of never spoken to again. Nope, definitely the most useless thing ever conceived.
But if Facebook is the only means for you to have contact with the person, what's the point? She/he is nothing more than a random acquintance that you don't give a flying fuck about. If the person would mean something to you, surely you would find another way than Facebook, or at least meet at some point.
So instead of one perfectly functional way of keeping in contact, I'm supposed to use another equally functional way of doing so because the first way is somehow? I have friends I keep in contact only through steam, same argument; do I suddenly not give a flying fuck about them, despite the fact that steam is a worse way of keeping in contact if you don't play games with them? And how exactly am I supposed to meet at some point with someone whom I can't contact? I can use FB to contact someone arranging to meet them for example. It also lets everyone at my uni doing the same degree keep in contact, discuss and help each other, et cetera.
Your argument is incredibly arbitrary, and amounts to "FB is terrible, ergo every friend you have on FB isn't a real friend". This may apply to people who have 960 friends, but for a lot of people it's incredibly helpful.
agreed, it is extremely easy to generate groups for studying/rec sports/pick up game/etc... as nearly everyone uses it, it's user friendly, and as mentioned it's 10x easier than using your phone to leave messages and such to contact someone to either catch up with them or let them know you'd like to meet up.
Yes, idiots use FB too people, but that doesn't mean you hate the damn service, it's free, efficient, and does exactly what AIM/msn/etc.. all used to do, just better.
OT: this is incredibly stupid, if that is the actual reason they were fired then I hope they get their moneys worth, that is bullshit for getting fired over such trivial matters.
Sis: And that is why you never make a facebook using your real name.
And that is why you don't use facebook at all.
Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.
I'm with you on this. I've never been happier than during that wonderful moment when I deleted my Facebook account.
Sadly Facebook is a wonderful tool for a lot of reasons, mostly because it presents the easiest way to reach the largest possible number of idiotic sheep people in one go. Brilliant for corporate entities and advertsing. Not brilliant if you tend to avoid people, like myself.
Facebook is just something I do not want. I find it hard to explain, but more than Facebook itself, I hate what it represents, and I do not want to be a part of the horde of people who use that thing.
Seriously, there has never been anything as useless as Facebook.
I'm with you on this. I've never been happier than during that wonderful moment when I deleted my Facebook account.
Sadly Facebook is a wonderful tool for a lot of reasons, mostly because it presents the easiest way to reach the largest possible number of idiotic sheep people in one go. Brilliant for corporate entities and advertsing. Not brilliant if you tend to avoid people, like myself.
Facebook is just something I do not want. I find it hard to explain, but more than Facebook itself, I hate what it represents, and I do not want to be a part of the horde of people who use that thing.
I know the feeling. It sucks you in and it's not until you stop and take a step back that you start to question what you're doing.
I was shopping on Amazon.co.uk for dvds and the like and after I paid for my items I was asked if I wanted to share my purchases with my Facebook friends, as in, click a button and have the world know what I just bought. That was the moment I knew, that was when I woke up.
Facebook is nothing more than virus that we willingly accept into our lives without question. I don't let anything into my life without question. It had to go.
While I do believe that the "like" button should be protected (albeit, stupid) speech. The judge's verdict is troublesome for normal employees and employers but I think it's ok to fire people who work for an elected official when they support the opposition.
Woodsey: Presumably voting is not protected because all you're doing is marking an X on a slip of paper.
Not even! You're just pushing your thumb onto a touchscreen that makes an X appear!
samsonguy920: Would you expect a Senator or Representative to hang onto staff who give a Facebook like to their political opponents? No. This was a pure sign of disrespect for the person they were working for and zero support. Sheriff BJ Roberts has to expect full support from his deputies when things hit the fan, and this juvenile bit on Facebook showed they have zero support for the guy. It isn't just about bruised feelings. The Sheriff's Department is law enforcement, responsible for the same risks the Police go through. If you don't have strong support from your deputies or officers, then you are liable to be left out in the cold and killed during any action. As far as I am concerned, those people would have been better off quitting their jobs, giving their vote to the opposing guy, and then see if he wins and hires them back into the department. Otherwise they basically just stabbed their boss in the back.
I'm surprised no one else seems to want to talk about this. They didn't just "Like" on Facebook, they were also actively supporting the political rival of their boss. And even if that wasn't the case, employees of elected officials are replaced pretty regularly even in good times, for all sorts of reasons or for no reason at all. It sounds just as likely to me the employees were let go legitimately and latched onto this Facebook thing as an excuse to sue.
DVS BSTrD: Yeah they had every right to *like* his opponent, and HE had every right to fire them for it. Just like he would have had every right to fire them he found out they were insulting him on Facebook: it's not a matter of freedom of speech, it's a matter of insubordination.
So you'd be totally cool with say Obama firing every government worker who didn't vote for him and citing insubordination as the reason he did it...okay. Frankly the idea of elected officials forcing their employees to vote for them is terrifying. You're basically saying regardless of the type of job I'm doing you have to vote for me or else I'll can you. I'm a little baffled how someone can not find that appalling.
Fappy: That is absolute bullshit. Freedom of Speech protects far more than "written statements". If motorcyclists can make the case for not wearing a helmet = freedom of expression than I have no idea why expressing that you agree with something, even if it is as simple as a Facebook "like", can't also share the same protection. Its hilarious how hypocritical and stupid our system really is.
I feel that liking something shouldn't need to be covered under the first amendment because I really does not tell you anything. On that same note I don't think it should be allowed to be used against you.
the simple act of "liking" a page isn't enough to count since you don't actually make any written statements when you do so.
If the above statement is true then shouldn't they have a case? They didn't support him they just liked his page.
But remember everyone, not all police are corrupt. Only most and all it takes is most.
Honestly I'm surprised, I would figure that the attorney would have argued that the support of the opposing candidate was the reason for firing (as it appears to be) and said support was inferred by the facebook like. Facebook likes may not qualify as free speech, but firing someone for their political affiliation is certainly illegal.
Honestly I'm surprised, I would figure that the attorney would have argued that the support of the opposing candidate was the reason for firing (as it appears to be) and said support was inferred by the facebook like. Facebook likes may not qualify as free speech, but firing someone for their political affiliation is certainly illegal.
I was thinking exactly the same thing, so I looked it up. It's entirely legal in Virginia for an employer to fire an employee for political reasons. They had to turn this into a free speech issue so they could call it a civil rights violation, although I really don't see how firing someone for his (presumably expressed) political beliefs would not violate his right to free speech in all cases.
Honestly I'm surprised, I would figure that the attorney would have argued that the support of the opposing candidate was the reason for firing (as it appears to be) and said support was inferred by the facebook like. Facebook likes may not qualify as free speech, but firing someone for their political affiliation is certainly illegal.
I was thinking exactly the same thing, so I looked it up. It's entirely legal in Virginia for an employer to fire an employee for political reasons. They had to turn this into a free speech issue so they could call it a civil rights violation, although I really don't see how firing someone for his (presumably expressed) political beliefs would not violate his right to free speech in all cases.
Fuck, how is political affiliation not covered by civil rights. Sounds like I need to petition my congressman about an idea I have for a new amendment.
Liking the Wrong Thing on Facebook Can Get You Fired
A judge in Virginia makes using social media a little more complicated.
You know that awkward moment on Facebook where you find out your boss is a huge fan of the Yankees, and you just clicked the "Like" button on the Red Sox page? Those moments might get a little more tense, as a recent case involving a sheriff who fired employees over supposedly liking an opponent's Facebook page ended with a federal judge ruling that liking a Facebook page doesn't qualify for First Amendment protection.
The story goes like this: During the 2009 elections, Sheriff B.J. Roberts of Hampton, Virginia supposedly learned that a handful of his employees were supporting one of his opponents, Jim Adams, by clicking the "like" button on Adam's Facebook page as well as attending a barbeque fundraiser. In response, Roberts called a department meeting, advising the staff to get on the "long train" with him rather than give their support to someone else, and then after winning re-election, Roberts canned several employees, including those who supported Adams.
The workers believed that their Facebook "Like" was the reason behind why they got axed, and sued Roberts for violating their First Amendment Rights under the not-so-unreasonable belief that a Facebook "Like" is protected by free speech and they were unlawfully terminated. Unfortunately, U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson disagreed, and stated that while Facebook Posts could be considered protected speech, the simple act of "liking" a page isn't enough to count since you don't actually make any written statements when you do so.
"Simply liking a Facebook page is insufficient," Judge Jackson said in his ruling. "It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. "
So what does this all mean? Well, that's what legal scholars across the country are trying to figure out while the dismissed workers file an appeal. In the meanwhile though, you might want to be a little more conscious about what you do on Facebook until it all gets settled. Or just be like me, and stick to playing games.
Source: Courthouse News via io9
Permalink