canadamus_prime: Ok constitutional BS aside, surly the Judge had to agree that they were unjustly terminated?
But they were attending the other dudes fundraisers! Why would anyone want to employ them after they turn on you like that?
Unless they were actually part of that dude's campaign, which is not the impression I got, then I don't see how it's justified that they be fired for supporting the other guy. I was under the impression that the whole point of a democratic system was that those in the system were free to support whomever they wanted without fear of consequence and I would assume that that would extend as far as a Sheriff's Department. I don't know, there's a lot I don't know about this whole issue. However based on the information I do have, this does seem like a blatant misuse of power to me, and if that's that kind of crap that guy is going to pull then maybe those guys were right to support the other guy.
Nuke_em_05: Protip: Don't friend your boss on Facebook.
If they were at-will employees, then it doesn't matter why he fired them.
If they were covered employees; firing them for political preference is a wrongful termination. Except if Roander's findings are true. Which is doesn't make much sense to me. If that isn't exclusive to the Public sector, that could lead to some serious abuse of the democratic process.
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.
Virginia is an at-will state so yes, according to VA law he could fire them for any reason at all. That's why they had to claim a civil rights violation; so it would move from being a state law issue to a federal one, which would take precedence over any state laws.
I should probably add some disclaimers: 1) I am not a lawyer 2) My 'findings' consisted of searching for this topic on the internet and reading an article about someone who was fired specifically for his political beliefs. The case happened to be in VA, so yay for serendipity. 3) The article was from 2008. It's possible that the law has been changed since then, although I doubt that it actually has been.
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.
The real question is, does this Sheriff DESERVE respect and support?
This is the kind of guy who FIRES PEOPLE for liking things on the internet.
And last I checked, this is the motherfucking United States of America, you can't be punished for voting for the "wrong" guy. Otherwise at least a third or so of us would be in prison on charges of a Hate Crime for not voting for Obama.
The judge is a moron for allowing this, and the sheriff is acting like a baby. Maybe the deputies liked the other guy because, I dunno, you were doing a shitty job? Maybe instead of throwing a fit of rage about it like a child and firing everyone who made you mad, you should step back and think "Am I as good as I think I am?"
MAYBE, just MAYBE, he should have asked his deputies why they liked the other guy instead of him, and then rectified the situation.
That comic made me laugh so hard.. I know I shouldn't of but.. lulz.
OT: This whole case is.. pathetic. No offense to the victims nor the boss who fired them- but this whole particular event is everyone's fault. The workers shouldn't of publicly voted for the person who's running against your boss and the boss himself shouldn't of fired people over pressing the 'like' button on the internet regardless if it was in favor of his rival.
This is why I dislike Facebook. The drama is created from that, and for most cases- it's used against you whether you did something wrong or just overlooked. All in all, the website used to be for mere chatting. Now it's like a profile to only set up if you plan on getting bit in the butt later on for it. That, and the other personal drama with trolling funerals and so forth (yeah, people troll funeral posts on Facebook... ugh.)
The issue I see isn't that they were fired. It is that because of this rulin the act of likin a page can have consequences. Couple lines I found to be freaky in the source.
"The sheriff's knowledge of the posts only becomes relevant if the court finds the activity of liking a Facebook page to be constitutionally protected," Jackson wrote. "It is the court's conclusion 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 in the record."
Accordin to the judge in the case, if they had gone on to their bosses opponents facebook page and gave actual support, even if said support was them bashin their current boss, that speech would be protected and they'd have a case. However the act of clickin a like button is not protected because there isn't any of your own words attached to them. That's a weird precedent to set.
It goes into more detail after that.
"Simply liking a Facebook page is insufficient," he added. "It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. The court will not attempt to infer the actual content of Carter's posts from one click of a button on Adams' Facebook page."
Someone is goin to have to explain to me what constitutes as a substantive statement.
[qupte] "In a case where the plaintiffs have asked the court itself to engage in extensive guesswork, an objectively reasonable official in the sheriff's position cannot be expected to engage in that same calculus," he said. "A balancing which has been difficult for multiple courts to engage is difficult more so for a sheriff attempting to ensure his actions do not impede upon the constitutional rights of his employees." "Taking the facts in the light more favorable to the plaintiffs, Sheriff Roberts is entitled to qualified immunity," the court concluded[/quote]
Had to look up qualified immunity for this one. Relevant bit
A government agent's liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with "malice," but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his/her actions violated clearly established law.
Im not quite sure what guesswork the courts had to do. They liked a facebook page, they got fired because of it, they sued because their free speech rights were violated. The court seems to believe that because a facebook like doesn't give the exact reasons for why you pressed it, it doesn't count as a form of free speech. With that as their conclusion, the police chief firin them wouldn't have been illegal because even if it were illegal to violate someones free speech rights by firin them for that, he apparently would have no way of knowin that it would have been illegal in the first place.
Perhaps someone smarter than me can explain what all this means, but at the moment I'm stumped.
As long as he is able to remain professional about it, it would not matter. I hate so, so, SO many of the people who come into my place of work. I still treat them courteously and do what I can to help them, as that is my job. Hell same can be said about PLENTY of people. It's called, you know, professionalism?
What people don't seem to realise is that your personal life and your professional life don't have to match up. Example, a defence lawyer may personally feel that his client should rot in the deepest dungeons on earth, but professionally he will do what he can do give them the best sentence (or get them off the charge entirely) possible.
That is correct, professional life and personal life do not HAVE to match up, but corporations, politicians, and any other form of employer wants them to. You wouldn't want to hire someone who is actively going to make you look bad would you? You wouldn't want to hire someone who's behaviors will reflect upon you would you? No, under no circumstances would you ever want to. A hard fact of life is you ARE judged by the company you keep. If my employees went around taking pictures of themselves snorting coke off of little boys in Taiwan, I would fire them, because their personal conduct is made public and comes back to me as a person who hires unrepentant coke addicted pedophiles.
If you show your support for your boss's opposition, you have to expect backlash. Being that this was what, a Sheriff, firing is a bit extreme. Trust exercises would be in order, but firing is the wrong thing to do, yet disgustingly at the same time justified.
(The lawyer analogy was a bad decision. Lawyers tend to have a rep as being scum sucking demons who will sacrifice everything they believe in to turn a profit.)
As long as he is able to remain professional about it, it would not matter. I hate so, so, SO many of the people who come into my place of work. I still treat them courteously and do what I can to help them, as that is my job. Hell same can be said about PLENTY of people. It's called, you know, professionalism?
What people don't seem to realise is that your personal life and your professional life don't have to match up. Example, a defence lawyer may personally feel that his client should rot in the deepest dungeons on earth, but professionally he will do what he can do give them the best sentence (or get them off the charge entirely) possible.
That is correct, professional life and personal life do not HAVE to match up, but corporations, politicians, and any other form of employer wants them to. You wouldn't want to hire someone who is actively going to make you look bad would you? You wouldn't want to hire someone who's behaviors will reflect upon you would you? No, under no circumstances would you ever want to. A hard fact of life is you ARE judged by the company you keep. If my employees went around taking pictures of themselves snorting coke off of little boys in Taiwan, I would fire them, because their personal conduct is made public and comes back to me as a person who hires unrepentant coke addicted pedophiles.
If you show your support for your boss's opposition, you have to expect backlash. Being that this was what, a Sheriff, firing is a bit extreme. Trust exercises would be in order, but firing is the wrong thing to do, yet disgustingly at the same time justified.
(The lawyer analogy was a bad decision. Lawyers tend to have a rep as being scum sucking demons who will sacrifice everything they believe in to turn a profit.)
I would think that depends on the nature of the job. The Pepsi employee who likes Coke on Facebook is at odds with their employer because they support a competing product. Whereas, in the Sheriff's office, the sheriff is their employer in the literal sense, but is it fair to say the Sheriff is the "product?" (I'm not sure. I don't really know anything about the politics and legalities of USA policing.)
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.
No, that's not right. Elected officials come and go. You support the office, not the person. The sheriff shouldn't be taking revenge on officers for availing themselves of their constitutionally protected political free speech.
So let me get this right: If the employers had written "I like Jim Adams" instead of clicking the "I like" button, then they would have been protected by the first amendment as its a written statement? I love logic sense when there is none..
but seriously, if that was his real reason to fire them, his douchery is on par with the lady that fired her donor after surgery.
Companies have to keep up appearances and don't want some one who works at their branch to like porno or objectionable stuff that might offend some-one. It is so easy to get info on person on face book if you know how and people willingly shell out this info like a bunch of dumb a*****.
People have been fired for saying how much they hate their boss over face-book as well the problem isn't the site it's the morons that use it.
Excludos: So let me get this right: If the employers had written "I like Jim Adams" instead of clicking the "I like" button, then they would have been protected by the first amendment as its a written statement? I love logic sense when there is none..
The 1st amendment has nothing to do with and if you read up on it said GOVERNMENT shall not infringe on a persons freedom of expression or views. These are corporations/companies that run a business to their own standards as the deem fit "wal-mart has the right not to sell explicit lyric Cd's". Is it fair, No but that's how bossiness conduct themselves.
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.
Oh gee obviously something that allows immediate contact with all your friends and the ability to share videos, pictures and website between each other near immediately on a user friendly network is worthless. Thanks for the heads up, back to using circuitous work around methods of arranging events, staying in touch and sharing interesting happenings with my people of interest.
If you mean stupid shit like liking a sports team and how arbitrary stuff like that is I agree though.
MammothBlade: Thanks for reminding me why I deleted my Facebook over a year ago.
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.
Facebook is kinda stupid. I don't care that someone likes this or that. I don't care that someone heard a bad joke and wants to share it with the world.
However I use Facebook in order to keep in touch with some of my friends from high school and we use it to arrange to meet up when we're all in town. I use it to communicate with people, send messages with attachments with people I work with on projects. I get party invitations with updates when there are changes. I have even used it to communicate with my university.
It got its uses even though it's stupid and the programming is sloppy.
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.
The real question is, does this Sheriff DESERVE respect and support?
This is the kind of guy who FIRES PEOPLE for liking things on the internet.
And last I checked, this is the motherfucking United States of America, you can't be punished for voting for the "wrong" guy. Otherwise at least a third or so of us would be in prison on charges of a Hate Crime for not voting for Obama.
The judge is a moron for allowing this, and the sheriff is acting like a baby. Maybe the deputies liked the other guy because, I dunno, you were doing a shitty job? Maybe instead of throwing a fit of rage about it like a child and firing everyone who made you mad, you should step back and think "Am I as good as I think I am?"
MAYBE, just MAYBE, he should have asked his deputies why they liked the other guy instead of him, and then rectified the situation.
Criminy, this isn't that hard.
Consider that this is a lot of people who were just given one more reason not to like their former boss, and I am thinking the odds are in favor of this Sheriff being voted out if he runs for the next term down the road. People in that county hearing about this should be asking the deputies and other staff who got let go why they did throw their likes at the running opponent.
I have always maintained the dangers of social networking since its inception. Everyone screaming I am wearing a tin foil hat and being crazy. Ya well I'm not as crazy as your average lawyer or judge. So I rest my case.
but seriously, if that was his real reason to fire them, his douchery is on par with the lady that fired her donor after surgery.
Companies have to keep up appearances and don't want some one who works at their branch to like porno or objectionable stuff that might offend some-one. It is so easy to get info on person on face book if you know how and people willingly shell out this info like a bunch of dumb a*****.
People have been fired for saying how much they hate their boss over face-book as well the problem isn't the site it's the morons that use it.
Excludos: So let me get this right: If the employers had written "I like Jim Adams" instead of clicking the "I like" button, then they would have been protected by the first amendment as its a written statement? I love logic sense when there is none..
The 1st amendment has nothing to do with and if you read up on it said GOVERNMENT shall not infringe on a persons freedom of expression or views. These are corporations/companies that run a business to their own standards as the deem fit "wal-mart has the right not to sell explicit lyric Cd's". Is it fair, No but that's how bossiness conduct themselves.
iee..did you read the article at all? "nothing to do with it" when the whole thing was about whetever or not the like button was protected by the 1st amendment..
I think this is fair because honestly, you had it coming.
You separate work from leisure. Imagine you work for EA or something. You're here on the Escapist saying that you're against DLC or Online Passes. From your profile info people can find that you work for EA.
Do you really think you'd maintain your job at EA if people found that an EA employee has been saying things against their business practices? (I defend freedom of speech, but try to make use of it if you're a whistleblower announcing the company you work for is using slave labor in Asia. I would like the "Like" button to be part of our civil rights, but we have to be reasonable when it comes to business)
Same thing with Facebook. Yeah, it's a pain to have multiple accounts. But it's better than being unemployed.
dagens24: The shitty thing is that stuff like this ruins things for the rest of the U.S.; it makes the entire country look like a big joke to outsiders.
Honestly, I think that the US is pretty cool compared to the absolute joke that is Europe.
ElPatron: I think this is fair because honestly, you had it coming.
You separate work from leisure. Imagine you work for EA or something. You're here on the Escapist saying that you're against DLC or Online Passes. From your profile info people can find that you work for EA.
Do you really think you'd maintain your job at EA if people found that an EA employee has been saying things against their business practices? (I defend freedom of speech, but try to make use of it if you're a whistleblower announcing the company you work for is using slave labor in Asia. I would like the "Like" button to be part of our civil rights, but we have to be reasonable when it comes to business).
The problem is, two people running for the same office shouldn't be considered enemies.
Look at government services. Do you really think the entire Ministry of the Interior performs a complete employee turnover every four years? Of course not, that would be absurd. So why is it okay when it's local scale?
iee..did you read the article at all? "nothing to do with it" when the whole thing was about whetever or not the like button was protected by the 1st amendment..
yes i did and that's why the judge ruled it wasn't protected under free speech. Do i have to copy paste what the first amendment means... actually here
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In plain english government shall not regulate freedom of speech however business can if it affects their bottom line. Now since the guy that fired worked for the state you get into murky water since politics where dragged in however it still stands that he is the boss and he fired them becasue of that and it's not protected under the 1st amendment, this why you keep politics out the work era but that's my personal opinion.
Friv: The problem is, two people running for the same office shouldn't be considered enemies.
Look at government services. Do you really think the entire Ministry of the Interior performs a complete employee turnover every four years? Of course not, that would be absurd. So why is it okay when it's local scale?
Cultural shock. I live in a country where corruption is rampant (Portugal) and political views matter a lot of you want to "climb the ladders" - politicians elect "political friends" and people from their party.
Do I agree with it? No. Is someone who isn't careful with what he/she says asking to be fired? Yes.
It's messed up, but making your damn private life public is pretty stupid too.
people take pictures and upload them and they have information telling everyone exactly where you were at that time, and they don't give a shit. So it's a two-way street: they can't screw with you over personal matters, but you have to stop making sure everyone knows what's going on in your personal life
Facebook, google, and youtube sure as hell know what you're doing.
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.
More useless than bells designed specifically for a baby in the womb to kick? I'm not even joking.
Anyway, this definitely seems to be one of those systems that has gotten so complicated, that, it's getting used for completely unintended things, for the worse. It's happened, before. I use Facebook... barely... I come here, on Smack Jeeves and DeviantART a lot more often than I ever do with Facebook.
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.
Really comes in handy in college though. We spread events, workshops, meetings, college notes and all that jazz through my course's Facebook group. We talk about lectures, swap experiences about failing teachers so we can do something about it as a group and even discuss and make make-at-home exams. I never expected Facebook to be so useful, used to hate it just as much as you do.
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.
Really comes in handy in college though. We spread events, workshops, meetings, college notes and all that jazz through my course's Facebook group. We talk about lectures, swap experiences about failing teachers so we can do something about it as a group and even discuss and make make-at-home exams. I never expected Facebook to be so useful, used to hate it just as much as you do.
So what you're saying is at Uni, you've replaced social interaction with a computer barrier. Facebook isn't needed to do any of that and if anything mal-adjusts you to interacting with other people. There are a lot of things people will listen to over the internet that will get you decked face to face.
Soooo....if I work for Coca Cola and drink a Pepsi at a restaurant, they have the right to fire me? If I work for Ford but show up to work in a Honda, my job is as good as gone? This is some pretty high-grade bullshit, I doubt anything in the contracts these guys signed mentioned slavish obedience to their boss at the expense of any personal opinions they may have.
It isn't as if they disobeyed a direct order, were insulting to the guy or were even doing their jobs badly. All they did was state a preference. There's no way they should lose their jobs over it.
Of course, the most worrying thing about this is that half this thread seems to be people bragging smugly about how terrible facebook is and how smart they are not to be using it rather than considering how fucked up the news story is :-\
Hey, if "liking" something is not enough to be protected under free speech, that means that from now on you will have to write actual comments. Sth. like: "You are much better suited for the job than the douchebag running the show atm" BAM free speech.
Unless they were actually part of that dude's campaign, which is not the impression I got, then I don't see how it's justified that they be fired for supporting the other guy. I was under the impression that the whole point of a democratic system was that those in the system were free to support whomever they wanted without fear of consequence and I would assume that that would extend as far as a Sheriff's Department. I don't know, there's a lot I don't know about this whole issue. However based on the information I do have, this does seem like a blatant misuse of power to me, and if that's that kind of crap that guy is going to pull then maybe those guys were right to support the other guy.