I’m a hardcore civil libertarian, and I find this pretty dismaying. I’m hoping it gets appealed to the SCOTUS and overturned. Does anyone agree with the reasoning of this judge?
http://gcn.com/articles/2012/05/07/agg-facebook-likes-first-amendment.aspx
It’s a bit more complicated than that. The judge is saying that there isn’t any evidence that the employees were fired because of their political activity.
There’s an error here, but the error is granting a motion for summary judgment when there is clearly an issue of fact.
Huh, are you getting your info from somewhere else? Because the article I linked in the OP quotes the judge as follows:
[note: I a) have not read the opinion, and b) do not have any real experience with Facebook. (So why are you still reading this post?)]
From what I’m gathering, perhaps the key lies in merely liking a page. The reference to the need to ‘like’ something to follow it’s page or gain access or whatnot implies that the judge is saying those functions have so watered down the speech content of liking a page such that clicking the button–with nothing else–is not enough to convey speech. The mere act of clicking like does not tell you whether a rabid liberal ‘likes’ Rush’s page to keep up with the opposing side, or likes a corporation’s page to enter a contest, etc.
So your employer can tell you not to use ‘like’ on Facebook at all, for anything? Wouldn’t surprise me considering what else they can do.
Note: with limited exception, what your employer tells you to (or not) to do has no Constitutional ramifications.
ETA: TriPolar != Tripler. Who knew?
In this case, the employer is the government.
Is local government bound by the Bill of Rights? I would think it must, but I can’t find a cite with a casual, half-assed search.
Many (maybe all) states have some bill of rights in their state constitution so a local government may fall under that.
I’m getting my info from the full text of the opinion, which is linked in the article. Although that quote appears to be a pretty clear statement, it really isn’t because the judge writes like the wool in his head is obscuring his keyboard.
States and their subdivisions are bound by most of the Bill of Rights via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, but not all of it. It’s called selective incorporation.
Your employer can fire you because your shoe laces are tied.
In a right to work state, a private employer can fire you for any reason, with minor exceptions (such as being a racial minority, filing a workers’ compensation claim, or being a public interest “whistleblower”).
Notthatbright is correct. Aside from that, it was filed, or heard, in federal court, as we see, and to have jurisdiction there MUST be a federal element, here the 1st AM. Federal District courts rarely have jurisdiction over state tort claims or state criminal matters.
If the Court had no subject matter jurisdiction, it would have been dismissed on that merit alone.
As a comparitive example, see; Rankin v. McPherson, USSC.
Surely it’s not a case of freedom of speech, really? Freedom of speech doesn’t mean no one can have a problem with anything you say, it means the law can’t. You can’t tell your boss he’s a [insert applicable word here] and expect to get away with it. No one would expect that to be covered by any law on freedoms. This situation is maybe a bit petty, but bringing the US Constitution into it seems to be missing the point.
Normally, yes, but this isn’t a private employer. That makes all the difference.
Well maybe it’s me missing the point, but doesn’t it depend somewhat on his job? Someone working in the White House may be a government employee but could be fired for what they say if they’re part of Obama’s staff in some way, surely? But presumably not so much if they’re the guy who cuts the grass, because I’d guess that guy doesn’t come and go with different presidents.
I believe that the difference is whether the employee is in a civil service or political position. Political employees serve at the pleasure of their boss, but civil service employees are not supposed to be subject to the whims of their employers, especially regarding their political opinions.
This. Civil servants may be required to abstain from political activity entirely, but they can’t be fired at whim. The apolitical civil service system we have today in the US (and that most democracies share) was created for just that purpose. Until the Pendleton Act of 1883, presidents could essentially hire and fire any executive department employee, and they generally hired their own flunkies and supporters in a system called patronage. Today, all of the states have their own merit-based civil service systems, but they don’t cover all civil servants.
Yes that was my point. As far as I saw there was no mention of what kind of job the guy had.
The one in question (who only “liked” the page) was a sheriff’s deputy.