[deepsand]

VivienZhao, on 29 April 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

unbelievable

Care to elaborate? Or, are we to just guess at your intended meaning?

[ZipFolder]

Wow! I guess Facebook gets you fired on the spot. No more liking things.

[deepsand]

ZipFolder, on 29 April 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Wow! I guess Facebook gets you fired on the spot. No more liking things.

Lots have people have gotten themselves into all sorts of trouble by forgetting that FB is a public space.

However, in this case FB was not at issue, as a reading of the Court's findings will show.

[DavidHampson]

Let me get this right, the plaintiffs worked for an elected official. So as an employee they may answer to the current elected sheriff but as a citizen it would be assumed they have a democratic right to express their own choice within the election. Obviously, threatening or actually firing anybody for voting or expressing to vote a particular way undermines democracy, I think an important distinction here would be that the sheriff is not a "boss" in the way that a manager at a company would be, he is in a temporary position subject to public whim, and at a time of election both Roberts and Adams share a similar status as potential future sheriff.
I read the Memorandum Opinion and can understand partially why the judgment was made, particularly in the sense that in this case it may be deemed that the employees may be expected to have a political allegience to the current sheriff and some had sworn an oath on this, but I think there is also the question as to whether the sheriff abused his position in his actions, at least one of the reasons which the plaintiffs gave in why they supported his opponent. As sheriff he would be expected to uphold the rule of law but also that of justice and fairness, his actions as well as his attempts to use his position to make him immune to the law shows him to probably be unsuitable for the post. Yes the sheriff is an idiot, but the plaintiffs are also idiots, for in their position it would be expected for them to show some discretion if only for the fact that it is sensible practice to appear reasonably impartial if only for the fact that the election may go either way and either candidate is a future sheriff they would be expected to work with. As for the judge, whilst he upheld the law I'd also put him in the idiot category for stating - "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection - firstly, suggesting that there is a limit in quantity of speech below which protection does not apply, and secondly, in failing to recognise that "like" has an implicit meaning "this is an opinion or position that I share" which may (particularly in the facts of this trial) express a good deal of meaning within the speech.

[skyshoes]

Illiterates on courts and the universities that produce them need a huge update. (hope the fascists don't track me down)

[pgillin]

Suppose you wanted to keep an eye on your opponent's Facebook activity by adding it to your activity stream. Wouldn't you first have to like the page to do that? That would seem to me to be a more sensible defense than a lawsuit. The bumper sticker is just dumb.

[AndrewBarfield]

This is why I don't have a Facetard account.

[AtlasFriedman]

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

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.

I believe it would be worthwhile for you to take the time to read the single paragraph which constitutes our First Amendment.

Nowhere in that amendment, does it say that you can say anything you want with no consequences. Indeed, that would be stupid, and impossible to enforce.

What it DOES say, is that CONGRESS cannot make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

[CharlesBrown]

I'm sorry, but if an employer fires you over a statement on facebook, that employer needs to be dragged out of their corner office and beaten to death by people looking for work.

[ChristopherMarsh]

That is why employers or potential employers have no access to Facebook, only Linked In. Only friends have access to Facebook. Keep work and personal life separate I say.

[deepsand]

DavidHampson, on 30 April 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

... I think there is also the question as to whether the sheriff abused his position in his actions, at least one of the reasons which the plaintiffs gave in why they supported his opponent.

There is, however, no evidence that Plaintiffs alleged that they were terminated for being whistleblowers.

DavidHampson, on 30 April 2012 - 01:47 AM, said:

As for the judge, whilst he upheld the law I'd also put him in the idiot category for stating - "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection - firstly, suggesting that there is a limit in quantity of speech below which protection does not apply, and secondly, in failing to recognise that "like" has an implicit meaning "this is an opinion or position that I share" which may (particularly in the facts of this trial) express a good deal of meaning within the speech.

As noted by the Judge, the matter re. FB has yielded conflicting decisions; and, in this particular case, is of no material import , in that other facts are sufficient for reaching a finding at Law.

In re. limitations on free speech, it is a long and well established principle that such is constrained by the harm caused by speech.

[deepsand]

ChristopherMarsh, on 30 April 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

That is why employers or potential employers have no access to Facebook, only Linked In. Only friends have access to Facebook.

To the contrary, very much of what you post on FB is public.

[Evildave]

On the contrary: EVERYTHING you post on Facebook, however it is flagged for sharing, is PUBLIC.

What they don't show everyone for free, they'll sell to others for a small fee, or give to a government just for asking.

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

[mjd420nova]

Because I often use some of my clients situations inpassing along my experiences to others, I do not use direct names but also under a different user name. I have a straight laced user name and e-mail that is for general concumption and is kept free of bias and discription of others problems or mine. Obviously, this username is not the cleaned and primpted content that I pass along to clients and prospective clients. I would have no qualms about givine out the user name, but due to the ISP's and website adminstrators warnings, I will not give out any passwords. Anyway, there's plenty to be had by just googling my user name. Try it on your own and see. I have a few clients that have the horsepower to cruise my e-mail even without my permission, they don't need it. I won't reveal the client but the initials are DHS and ICE. Thankfully I've maintained a continued military clearance, even after 40 years, which is no easy feat and has not detracted from any future considerations.

[ronin7752]

Quote

What's your view? Who's the idiot here -- the judge, the plaintiffs or the defendant?

Why must this question be "either/or". I vote for "all of the above."

This post has been edited by ronin7752: 30 April 2012 - 05:38 PM

[deepsand]

ronin7752, on 30 April 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Quote

What's your view? Who's the idiot here -- the judge, the plaintiffs or the defendant?

Why must this question be "either/or". I vote for "all of the above."

By what rational measure is the Judge an idiot?

[mjd420nova]

deepsand, on 30 April 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

ronin7752, on 30 April 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Quote

What's your view? Who's the idiot here -- the judge, the plaintiffs or the defendant?

Why must this question be "either/or". I vote for "all of the above."

By what rational measure is the Judge an idiot?

I don't see this as being a problem with the judge but with the administrators behind them who do the research and provide their findings to the judge. A flaw in the interpretation of the laws gets a bit distorted after being passed through too many hands. Something as simple as a misspelling or mis-quote can skew a judge's perception to the extent that a wrong ruling becomes the inevitable outcome.

[deepsand]

mjd420nova, on 30 April 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

deepsand, on 30 April 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

ronin7752, on 30 April 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Quote

What's your view? Who's the idiot here -- the judge, the plaintiffs or the defendant?

Why must this question be "either/or". I vote for "all of the above."

By what rational measure is the Judge an idiot?

I don't see this as being a problem with the judge but with the administrators behind them who do the research and provide their findings to the judge.

Presumably you refer, not to "administrators," but to "law clerks."

What evidence is there to suggest that any law clerk was so involved, and that a mistake was made by such?

[Evildave]

Could just be a dumb judge. Why not? There are lawyers and doctors and all kinds of 'pros' who got straight 'C' in college. It's not what you know, but who you know for political appointments, like judges.

[deepsand]

Not all Judges are appointed; and, not all are dumb. The argument that this particular Judge is dumb is wholly without merit.

Why, even here some supposedly learned members make some pretty dumb remarks at times.