Judge: Facebook's "Like" Button Not Protected by the First Amendment

A Federal judge in Virginia has ruled that clicking on the Like button on Facebook is not protected by the First Amendment.

The case itself is simple: 6 people who worked for sheriff were fired after supporting said sheriff's opponent on Facebook using the "Like' button. The six persons went on to sue the sheriff for violating their First Amendment rights. The judge then gave the above ruling.

It should be noted, the judge gave a very big distinction: while "liking" something is not protected by the first amendment, written messages are still protected.

Anyways what do y'all think?

edited 5th May '12 10:48:58 PM by tclittle

Plus, the article makes a good point that you can't follow a Facebook page without first "liking" it. Is the judge even familiar with how Facebook works?

I've never understood common law. It sometimes seems like American judges are just Making It Up As They Go Along.

If it's something specific that there isn't any actual law for or precedence from previous cases, yes, that's generally the case.

They are. Because everything must revolve around the Holy Constitution and the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers, who didn't have Facebook.

Yes, but isn't making laws the job of the legislative branch?

Technically speaking, they're not making laws. They're supposed to interpret the law, which means setting precedence for what to do in specific cases.

Lawmaking is the responsibility of both the legislative branch and the judiciary.

Anyway, this is dumb. How is clicking the like button any different from posting a message saying "I like this"? The judge says there's a difference, but the article doesn't say anything about his reasoning. Hopefully it will be successfully appealed.

Hold on a minute - since when could you get fired for backing someone else?

My thoughts exactly, that's political opinion discrimination.

Of course, it happened in France too and was eventually declared legal too.

edited 6th May '12 8:24:41 AM by Medinoc

Also, common law judgements are only binding for courts lower than the ones the judgement was made in right?

Still stupid.

It seems they had hard evidence that they were fired for it. Seems like if their employer didn't want them to do that he should have got them to sign something.

Anyway, it's all the more clear you shouldn't friend your boss.

And Googles circles sound nice. /HasNotGotAroundToTryingGoogle+Yet

edited 6th May '12 8:27:57 AM by UltimatelySubjective

Yup, lower courts are bound to follow the precedent set by higher ones.

Oh well, all the more reason not to use Facebook and just remain anonymous online.

edited 6th May '12 8:30:42 AM by Talby

Otherwise it's just precedent, not binding. Luckily there's still higher courts.

This decision could still be overturned.

How come "liking" is not protected speech but money is?

"Anonymous online" ? There is no such thing. Anything you write as soon as it hits your ISP server is fed to ECHELON. Google that for a bit. It isn't pretty.

There's no way this could possibly stand appeal. It's nonsensical.

I'm more pissed that they fired tons of sheriffs deputies just because they supported an opponent of the incumbent, who is usually another deputy themselves, they got fired.

Fucked up shit.

Appears to be a murky-rumor sort of deal. But I should really use Freenet and Tor more than I do, so thanks for reminding me.

So, to be clear, they're going to have to take this to the Supreme Court? Man, that's the biggest eye-roll since they saw the case where an airport banned, and I quote, "First Amendment activities".

Nah, not rumor. I was once part of the British Army's communications specialist apparatus, the Royal Corps of Signals. And I was told in no uncertain terms by folks who should have known that not only was ECHELON real, it was far worse than that journalist who did the documentary on it (which was pulled, by the way) could ever imagine. And anyone that tells you that it does not exist, said these folks, has an agenda.

ECHELON is one of those secrets that everyone in the business knows about and few want to admit to. It helps us (as I was) learn that nothing we ever say is truly private unless heavily encrypted. Hell, my voice print, logs of my transmissions of data that I sent on exercise and just about everything else about my military career is probably still on file in the Lubyanka and wherever the GRU is based. Even though I have been out for a decade or more. Because I was an asset. And if your enemy knows all about you, what makes you think your friends are any different?

Well it should be protected, I don't know what more there is to say. I saw this story a while ago and was surprised that an American judge didn't protect freedom of speech. I have no idea what philosophy he's following in his head. So if I make a post "I like Candidate X", it's okay but if I click a like button, it is not? Bleh.

And as for firing people who supported a political opponent, there's a mayor in Toronto right now who is dismissing people who didn't back his subway plans!

I read about this a week or so ago.

Here's what the judge said:

Emphasis mine. This is patent bullshit. The first amendment doesn't just protect speech or statements, it also protects actions such as wearing an amrband, not saying something, waving a flag, marching while dressed as a nazi, the list goes on. To make such an arbitrary decision to not include clicking a button (surely voting for a political party has at one point involved hitting a button) is... bullcrap.

Even if you inferred the minimum, the verb "like", is that not sufficient? "I like X" It's a like button! What the hell else could you mean?

edited 6th May '12 12:14:02 PM by breadloaf

Doesn't Tinker v. Des Moines sort of invalidate that line of reasoning...?

In what way? From a quick skim of that article, the judges in favor of the ban of the armbands were steamrollered by those who were against it. Five votes to two is a bit of a kicking in any language.

It's events like these that make me glad public officials are not elected here.