Facebook Claims Likes Are Protect By First Amendment

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Facebook is trying to convince a court of appeals that "likes" are protected by the First Amendment and that the original judge in the case came to an "erroneous conclusion."

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. 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.
Click to expand...
 
It's a legal precedent supported by landmark cases in the past that determine what is and isn't substantial enough to constitute protected speech. It takes something more substantial than pressing a silly thumbs-up button and the judge interperted and applied the law correctly even though the circumstances kinda stink for the people involved. Facebook does have costs though and people using it have to pay that price once in a while. I'd guess the appeals court will uphold the trial court's decision.
 
SkribbelKat said:
It's a legal precedent supported by landmark cases in the past that determine what is and isn't substantial enough to constitute protected speech. It takes something more substantial than pressing a silly thumbs-up button and the judge interperted and applied the law correctly even though the circumstances kinda stink for the people involved. Facebook does have costs though and people using it have to pay that price once in a while. I'd guess the appeals court will uphold the trial court's decision.
Click to expand...
While correct, law develops over time. If you're standing on the side of the road holding a placard and I happen to agree with your sentiment it honking my horn may not be protected speech but standing next to you is protected expression.

Given the technological shifts and the way people express themselves more commonly via twitter, Likes, and 160 character texts means that our courts may have to start coming to an agreement with the population that when I Like something I am digitally standing shoulder to shoulder with you with your placard--especially if the page I'm Liking is expressing something that is protected expression.

So we might start to see differentiation between Liking art, political, or social commentary vs. a blank page that everyone Likes. Although a blank Like page might be a political expression in and of itself in protest against these kinds of verdicts so there ya go :)
 
SkribbelKat said:
It's a legal precedent supported by landmark cases in the past that determine what is and isn't substantial enough to constitute protected speech. It takes something more substantial than pressing a silly thumbs-up button and the judge interperted and applied the law correctly even though the circumstances kinda stink for the people involved. Facebook does have costs though and people using it have to pay that price once in a while. I'd guess the appeals court will uphold the trial court's decision.
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike ( ha ha) the idea of employees being fired over a "like"...I agree with the judge. A "like" is as insubstantial as speech gets.
 
to clarify, the test is not whether one's expression is substantial enough but rather whether the state's imposition of the expression is supported by a substantial state interest and that's only in time, place, and manner. Content of speech is held under a strict standard and commercial speech less so.
 
If Carter had stood on a street corner and announced, "I like Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff," there would be no dispute that his statement was constitutionally protected speech. Carter made that very statement; the fact that he did it online, with a click of a computer's mouse, does not deprive Carter's speech of constitutional protection.

That pretty much sums it up.
 
rand4505 said:
If Carter had stood on a street corner and announced, "I like Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff," there would be no dispute that his statement was constitutionally protected speech. Carter made that very statement; the fact that he did it online, with a click of a computer's mouse, does not deprive Carter's speech of constitutional protection.

That pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...

The problem is that clicking the button doesn't specifically say, "I like Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff." It could also say, "I like Jim Adams' hair," or "I wonder what this thumbs up button does?"

The "like" function could mean anything or nothing at all and therefore is far to vague to be protected.
 
SkribbelKat said:
The problem is that clicking the button doesn't specifically say, "I like Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff." It could also say, "I like Jim Adams' hair," or "I wonder what this thumbs up button does?"

The "like" function could mean anything or nothing at all and therefore is far to vague to be protected.
Click to expand...

It could also mean "I think my boss is an absolute dumbass. Vote for this guy"...which might be 1st Amendment speech you are free to say, but I think might also be grounds for your boss to freely fire you.
 
SkribbelKat said:
The problem is that clicking the button doesn't specifically say, "I like Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff." It could also say, "I like Jim Adams' hair," or "I wonder what this thumbs up button does?"

The "like" function could mean anything or nothing at all and therefore is far to vague to be protected.
Click to expand...
you are reversing the measure

there isn't speech that is too vague to be protected
there are laws that can be too vague to withstand scrutiny
 
Skripka said:
It could also mean "I think my boss is an absolute dumbass. Vote for this guy"...which might be 1st Amendment speech you are free to say, but I think might also be grounds for your boss to freely fire you.
Click to expand...

There is that too. Even if you're legally allowed to make a stupid comment, that doesn't mean you can't be fired for it.
 
The fact that cops wanted to vote for someone else and got fired for it sounds like that sheriff needs to be thrown in jail for voter intimidation.
 
Well, if three people were fired for liking the another candidate I would think the problem is with the sheriff doing the firing, not with the 'like' button. There should not even be a question as to whether this is a free speach issue.

The attitude that says "My employees must vote for me or I will fire them" doesn't fly to well with me.
 
BBA said:
Well, if three people were fired for liking the another candidate I would think the problem is with the sheriff doing the firing, not with the 'like' button. There should not even be a question as to whether this is a free speach issue.

The attitude that says "My employees must vote for me or I will fire them" doesn't fly to well with me.
Click to expand...

Same goes with the idea that "my employees must support me as an elected official." If that is the case just declare that officers have no rights.
 
SkribbelKat said:
It takes something more substantial than pressing a silly thumbs-up button and the judge interperted and applied the law correctly
Click to expand...

Now can we have this applied to the silly button you have to press to install software when presented with an EULA?
 
SkribbelKat said:
It's a legal precedent supported by landmark cases in the past that determine what is and isn't substantial enough to constitute protected speech. It takes something more substantial than pressing a silly thumbs-up button and the judge interperted and applied the law correctly even though the circumstances kinda stink for the people involved. Facebook does have costs though and people using it have to pay that price once in a while. I'd guess the appeals court will uphold the trial court's decision.
Click to expand...

Please cite the part of the first amendment which states that speech is only protected if the government deems it to be "substantial" enough.

This is the problem with common law. Why bother having written laws when they can just be ignored via judicial fiat?
 
Phoenix333 said:
Now can we have this applied to the silly button you have to press to install software when presented with an EULA?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, those EULA things aren't considered valid by courts. A lot of that depends on what the court interperts as the expectations of a "reasonable person" might be under the circumstances. Generally though, click-to-agree is a thing that can be disputed and such disputes have sometimes had success.

damicatz said:
Please cite the part of the first amendment which states that speech is only protected if the government deems it to be "substantial" enough.

This is the problem with common law. Why bother having written laws when they can just be ignored via judicial fiat?
Click to expand...

I like Fiats too, but I heard they aren't selling well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdsKz_0JcQk
 
SkribbelKat said:
Sometimes, those EULA things aren't considered valid by courts. A lot of that depends on what the court interperts as the expectations of a "reasonable person" might be under the circumstances. Generally though, click-to-agree is a thing that can be disputed and such disputes have sometimes had success.



I like Fiats too, but I heard they aren't selling well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdsKz_0JcQk
Click to expand...

fi·at (ft, -t, -ät, ft, -t)
n.
1. An arbitrary order or decree.
2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.
 
SkribbelKat said:
There is that too. Even if you're legally allowed to make a stupid comment, that doesn't mean you can't be fired for it.
Click to expand...

I thought this too, but what made it a bit more complicated is that the Sheriff is a government official, not quite a private employeer. I think the "Like" button is protected speech, and I think the real issue is whether or not the Sheriff can fire someone for it or not..

If Liking something isn't free speech, then if I were to "Like" some anti-government facebook page, could they come to my house and throw me in prison? Could they make it illegal to do such a thing?
 
rand4505 said:
If Carter had stood on a street corner and announced, "I like Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff," there would be no dispute that his statement was constitutionally protected speech. Carter made that very statement; the fact that he did it online, with a click of a computer's mouse, does not deprive Carter's speech of constitutional protection.

That pretty much sums it up.
Click to expand...

Even so, that wasn't the basis of the case.
The premise of the case was the Carter should be immune from the repercussions of his speech.

Let's form a parallel... Let's say I work on Barack Obama's campaign and I stand on the street corner and announce "I like Mitt Romney for President"... for sure I have the right to say that, and nobody has the right to suppress my speech... but I am not immune from the consequences of my speech. I will likely lose standing in the Obama campaign.

I'll quote Jon Stewart:
Jon Stewart said:
“I don't know why people think that somehow the First Amendment applies to network television. It doesn't. It's like the way free speech doesn't apply at work. You can't just walk into your boss' office and say 'you're a fuckface and I'm gonna go back to work now.' No, you're not.”
Click to expand...
 
Zangmonkey said:
Let's form a parallel... Let's say I work on Barack Obama's campaign and I stand on the street corner and announce "I like Mitt Romney for President"... for sure I have the right to say that, and nobody has the right to suppress my speech... but I am not immune from the consequences of my speech. I will likely lose standing in the Obama campaign.
Click to expand...
The difference is these other officers weren't working for that sheriff's campaign, they were working as a police officer regardless of whom was sheriff at the time.
 
SkribbelKat said:
The "like" function could mean anything or nothing at all and therefore is far to vague to be protected.
Click to expand...
No, in any reasonable interpretation, it couldn't mean either of those things. There's a range of things a "Like" can mean, depending on to which comment it's being applied. The range is neither null nor infinite.
 
wonderfield said:
No, in any reasonable interpretation, it couldn't mean either of those things. There's a range of things a "Like" can mean, depending on to which comment it's being applied. The range is neither null nor infinite.
Click to expand...

When dealing with the expression of human emotion the range is always infinite and impossible to quantify. I've quoted a historically significant example below:

Reg: If you want to join the People's Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans.
Brian: I do!
Reg: Oh yeah, how much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right, you're in.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top