[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Facebook 'Likes' Could Get You Fired, and Legal Options are a Challenge here

[tferree]

Too many idiots all around...

[ChrisWalker]

These 2 are idiots. They obviously didnt want to work with him. But when things didnt go their way (they got fired instead of him) they throw a tantrum and file a lawsuit?. Thanks, for wasting more taxpayers money. 1st by collecting your paychex, and then taking the judges time away from actual matters of importance. And about freedom of speech, what if they had "liked" a group promoting the [censored] agenda or al-Qaeda? Should they be allowed to keep their jobs in those situations as well. At what point do we draw the line and say "you're too much of an idiot to carry a gun and protect the public"

Would you hire someone to your company who went on public record against you? Could they sue you for opinion discrimination?

This is all just too much

[IarrthoirFirinne]

What a friggin joke how pathetic is this country going to get. I think facebook needs to be shut down.

[TravisSichel]

>_<

This post has been edited by TravisSichel: 29 April 2012 - 11:05 AM

[TravisSichel]

Cheeses crackers, really?! what kind of degenerative human worm would fire someone over a like?? talk about over reacting! What a freak.

Cant believe oxygen is wasted on a pathetic soul like that.

[deepsand]

Diss your boss; get fired.

What's so hard to understand?

[RDunn]

A 'like' is expressing an opinion... in this case, tantamount to a political endorsement and that is 'speech' and free in this country. (And if that endorsement is what prompted the firing... no matter if it's in opposition to your employer, political expression is protected.) If the case goes to a higher court, the judge's decision (failing to provide protection) will be overturned, I'm sure. And too bad for the sherrif, can't have just yes-men working for him.

This post has been edited by RDunn: 29 April 2012 - 11:55 AM

[Fatesrider]

So I guess now you can get fired if you're working for someone in the capacity of a government employee and you openly support an opponent in an election. We used to have that right in the U.S.. Assuming the facts are as presented here and the employee wasn't fired for another reason (and used their support of the opponent as an excuse - which is always possible), then the judge needs a course in constitutional law. We have the right to speak out about whom we support. But apparently the judge says no, we don't.

This would allow a Democrat or Republican to root out all ideologically opposed employees in government and fire them.

It seems to me that Roberts was wrong and the judge needs to learn is damn job.

[deepsand]

RDunn, on 29 April 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

... no matter if it's in opposition to your employer, political expression is protected.

False.

First Amendment does not apply to non-governmental actions.

[wbonham]

I would like to read the judge's opinion as to why this is not free speech. If someone expressed their opinion in the newspaper, that is free speech but when they express their opinion on the web as a like or not it is not free speech? That's idiotic. I hope that they appeal. I'll donate to their defense.

[deepsand]

wbonham, on 29 April 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

I would like to read the judge's opinion as to why this is not free speech. If someone expressed their opinion in the newspaper, that is free speech but when they express their opinion on the web as a like or not it is not free speech? That's idiotic. I hope that they appeal. I'll donate to their defense.

To repeat, the First Amendment does not apply to non-governmental actions.

[nonseq]

It might be helpful to read the actual MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER before waxing eloquent about first amendment rights or the right of the Sheriff to fire the Plaintiffs. http://www.scribd.co...-Va-Apr-24-2012 It's pretty straightforward and easy to read and understand.

[eoraptor2]

"The law makes everyone equal, but justice goes to the highest bidder"

And obviously, the highest bidder in this case is the judge, who has to work closely with the sheriff, but has no such compunction about lowly functionaries.

Sounds like a case of the good old boys network in action to me.

Yes, a legal case over facebook likes is asinine when brought by a bunch of spurned employees who backed the wrong horse; but far more relevant and dangerous is the precedent that "online speech" is not "Free speech"

[nonseq]

deepsand, on 29 April 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

wbonham, on 29 April 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

I would like to read the judge's opinion as to why this is not free speech. If someone expressed their opinion in the newspaper, that is free speech but when they express their opinion on the web as a like or not it is not free speech? That's idiotic. I hope that they appeal. I'll donate to their defense.

To repeat, the First Amendment does not apply to non-governmental actions.

In Virginia the Sheriff is a constitutional officer and 4 of the plaintiffs were sworn officers while the remainder were employees of the Sheriff's Dept. That would suggest to me that this is a governmental action. However, it also seems to me that the Plaintiffs failed to establish deprivation of constitutional rights. I am not an attorney (and I do not play one on TV)so my opinion may not be all that valuable. But reading the MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER for Summary Judgement (I posted the link to the actual document earlier) puts a great deal in perspective.

This post has been edited by nonseq: 29 April 2012 - 01:56 PM

[nonseq]

eoraptor2, on 29 April 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

"The law makes everyone equal, but justice goes to the highest bidder"

And obviously, the highest bidder in this case is the judge, who has to work closely with the sheriff, but has no such compunction about lowly functionaries.

Sounds like a case of the good old boys network in action to me.

Yes, a legal case over facebook likes is asinine when brought by a bunch of spurned employees who backed the wrong horse; but far more relevant and dangerous is the precedent that "online speech" is not "Free speech"

Except that this is the US District Court. But it was a clever response, if unfounded.

[Evildave]

How do I permanently delete my account?
http://www.facebook....224562897555674

[deepsand]

nonseq, on 29 April 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

deepsand, on 29 April 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

wbonham, on 29 April 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

I would like to read the judge's opinion as to why this is not free speech. If someone expressed their opinion in the newspaper, that is free speech but when they express their opinion on the web as a like or not it is not free speech? That's idiotic. I hope that they appeal. I'll donate to their defense.

To repeat, the First Amendment does not apply to non-governmental actions.

In Virginia the Sheriff is a constitutional officer and 4 of the plaintiffs were sworn officers while the remainder were employees of the Sheriff's Dept. That would suggest to me that this is a governmental action. However, it also seems to me that the Plaintiffs failed to establish deprivation of constitutional rights. I am not an attorney (and I do not play one on TV)so my opinion may not be all that valuable. But reading the MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER for Summary Judgement (I posted the link to the actual document earlier) puts a great deal in perspective.

My remarks were directed at those who wrongly believe that all speech is protected under all circumstances.

As for this case, the fact that the Sheriff is a "constitutional officer" does not perforce mean that any and all actions taken by him are "governmental" in nature. As the Judge here noted, there is an important distinction between speech dealing with private and public issues; and, that those acting as an agent of such officer have a duty to not undermine his authority. One finds such principles firmly and explicitly incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[VivienZhao]

unbelievable

[ChrisFullam]

If I'm out promoting my company's main competitor, you don't think I'd get fired?

If it were just facebook "likes," I'd say its ridiculous, because "liking" a page is merely subscribing to its updates. I'd actually say thats smart for staying informed. However, the bumper sticker and attending the BBQ is where he crossed the line.

Typical attention grabbing, misleading headline.