[Evildave]

No reason to ever assume a LAWYER is smart. Lots of politicians are lawyers, too. I wouldn't trust them not to be electrocuted changing a lightbulb.

[deepsand]

A lot of electricians are equally dumb.

Fact: One does not get through law school by being dumb.

Attacking this judge simply because he is a judge is what is dumb.

[mjd420nova]

deepsand, on 30 April 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

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?

From personal experience I make this statement. In my case, a transposition of numbers in a licenced call sign voided any proof of wrong doing. This should have been checked and rechecked but was overlooked and commited to an official document. Can't really force an issue, impose a fine or conduct any inspections when the facts are wrong.

[bigbear639]

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.

Newspapers and Magazines on paper are all but gone in many places and they are available on the Internet only. So if someone expresses an opinion on one of those electronic newsmedia are they not protected? The courts have long ruled that one can say pretty much what they want other than making threats or shouting fire in a crowded theather. The opinion that the First Amendment does not apply to Citizens only the Government is a bunch of crok. judge welome to the Welcome to the United Soviet America USA.

[JoseMML]

To 'like' something on FB, as I understand it, is not necessarily to approve of something, but to signify that you consider it worthwhile looking into. It may indeed be tantamount to an endorsement of a person, object, link, or whatever, but it does not necessarily mean that. If I 'like' an link to an article that describes the mayhem following a terrorist bombing, which am I endorsing--the article or the mayhem? I think the matter should be clear to most people, but still, it's an inference.

[CyberCommand]

Attention everyone please:
It is my honorable duty to inform you that 97.5 percent of what you're posting on FB is 100% Public information. More than half of the current search engines on the worldweb search for your postings from FB, websites, blogs, twitter, comments about everything you can think of and etc.

Simply take the time to search yourself your emails and your user names. If you post it anywhere on the worldweb you're at risk of someone else finding your information, and it does not go away as fast as some of you may think. Information posted on the worldweb may be searchable for up to three years.

"Deepsand" has give you good and knowledgeable information herein such as we have posted here for you also. Now go an use our information wisely.
One more piece of information we should like to share. If you use "Packaging Tracking" like UPS...Do we need to warn you any further? Yes it is traceable right to you, ladies and gentlemen that is 100% factual information.

Countless times we have answered questions posted on "Yahoo Answers" informing the public of employers searching for your information. Countless times we have seen counter post stating that is not true ...employers do not waste time doing that.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the public, TRUST us, because we do for them and we know what is really going on on the world wide web.
Thank you and have a nice day.

[Evildave]

An important aside:

Make an email account JUST for dealing with your work, and never, ever give them any other account, and never, ever log into any 'home' account of any description through the company's network. If they're twisted enough to demand 'facebook' account, make one with that email address, once again, JUST for work, and never friend anyone, nor add anything to it.

Similarly, you can make a phone number (google voice) with that same account to handle voice messages from work. Also, so you can turn that OFF, after hours. Don't use a 'company phone' for anything.

Don't give your coworkers access to your 'real' accounts unless they become ACTUAL friends; the sort you'd trust as a babysitter. Not just workplace acquaintances who'll stab you in the back the first time you turn around. If you're going to be betrayed nastily, at least have a real relationship to end, rather than some random d-bag you had pizza with at lunch a couple of times, who'd laugh if you spattered funny when a bus crushed your head. Nor should you discuss things work-related with names/details/dates/events that could be tracked back to your job, or you, with ANY account, ever.

Also, unless your real name is absurdly common, don't use it (and especially don't use images of your own face, or an icon that you personally use on accounts identifiable as 'you') on accounts where you indulge in 'controversy'. It has a funny way of finding its way back to you. Plausible deniability can be a big asset. For example, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people using an 'evildave' handle in the world.

Don't ever fill in the 'bio' details on forums, or not with 'real' information, if required. The more public details, the more easily your 'anonymous' account is matched to you.

[deepsand]

mjd420nova, on 01 May 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

deepsand, on 30 April 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

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

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?

From personal experience I make this statement. In my case, a transposition of numbers in a licenced call sign voided any proof of wrong doing. This should have been checked and rechecked but was overlooked and commited to an official document. Can't really force an issue, impose a fine or conduct any inspections when the facts are wrong.

Given that the duty to discover evidence and enter such into the record rests with the opposing parties in an action, not with the Court, the relevancy of your experience escapes me.

As for any error here involving a law clerk, such remains but speculation.

[deepsand]

bigbear639, on 01 May 2012 - 08:18 AM, 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.

Newspapers and Magazines on paper are all but gone in many places and they are available on the Internet only. So if someone expresses an opinion on one of those electronic newsmedia are they not protected? The courts have long ruled that one can say pretty much what they want other than making threats or shouting fire in a crowded theather. The opinion that the First Amendment does not apply to Citizens only the Government is a bunch of crok. judge welome to the Welcome to the United Soviet America USA.

Did you not read the Judge's memorandum?

All speech is not protected. Never has been; never will be.

More importantly, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of speech.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 01 May 2012 - 06:07 PM

[TimOey]

Most who commented here so far missed the major point of this article. There are 2 issues in play:
1) Whether your boss can fire you for something you did.
2) Whether liking on Facebook is free speech or not.

Regarding #1, yes what you say can get you fired, that is the nature of employment and free speech.

But the article states:

It is the court's conclusion that merely "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection," the court said.

That judges opinion is so wrong it is scary. Expressing a binary opinion, saying yes or no, like or dislike, is free speech! Eric Goldman knows this are of law very well.

This free speech judgement is the big news year, not getting fired.

[TimOey]

TimOey, on 01 May 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

This free speech judgement is the big news year, not getting fired.

Oops, typo, that should have said:
"This free speech judgement is the big news here, not getting fired."

[deepsand]

TimOey, on 01 May 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Most who commented here so far missed the major point of this article. There are 2 issues in play:
1) Whether your boss can fire you for something you did.
2) Whether liking on Facebook is free speech or not.

Regarding #1, yes what you say can get you fired, that is the nature of employment and free speech.

But the article states:

It is the court's conclusion that merely "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection," the court said.

That judges opinion is so wrong it is scary. Expressing a binary opinion, saying yes or no, like or dislike, is free speech! Eric Goldman knows this are of law very well.

This free speech judgement is the big news year, not getting fired.

If you read carefully, the Judge found that the matter re. FB was immaterial, as the nature of the speech involved was personal speech of an unprotected nature, so that no ruling in that regard was needed.

It is a guiding principle here in the US that a Court not render a finding that is more broad than necessary.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 01 May 2012 - 06:46 PM

[Aikes]

The sad truth here is that freedom of expression that harms no one else is being squashed through fear of reprisal.

Law students and nit-pickers can slice it and dice it anyway they feel makes them seem "smart" in the eyes of the law, but the simple truth here is that people are being taught to fear having a public opinion.

[deepsand]

Aikes, on 02 May 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

The sad truth here is that freedom of expression that harms no one else ...

Such speech undermines the cohesiveness of the organization in question.

The principle of not allowing such speech is firmly incorporated into the US Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[Evildave]

Tip: The UCMJ doesn't apply to sheriff's deputies.

If it's OK for the sheriff to lay people off for supporting his political opponents, why shouldn't it be OK for YOUR boss to fire you because you liked one guy or another for president?

Why shouldn't it be OK for a cop to pull you over for having the wrong kind of political bumper sticker that he doesn't like?

Realistically, any boss can fire you for anything. The smarter ones have a 'layoff', for the usual 'budget' reasons layoffs happen, and lump you in with it.

[deepsand]

The principle re. unit cohesiveness still holds.

The notion that such speech does no harm is naive at best; at worst, disingenuous.

BTW, guess you missed the part about said Sheriff having a planned reduction of staff.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 02 May 2012 - 01:11 AM

[JamesEvens]

Evildave, on 01 May 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

An important aside:

Make an email account JUST for dealing with your work, and never, ever give them any other account, and never, ever log into any 'home' account of any description through the company's network. If they're twisted enough to demand 'facebook' account, make one with that email address, once again, JUST for work, and never friend anyone, nor add anything to it.

Similarly, you can make a phone number (google voice) with that same account to handle voice messages from work. Also, so you can turn that OFF, after hours. Don't use a 'company phone' for anything.

Don't give your coworkers access to your 'real' accounts unless they become ACTUAL friends; the sort you'd trust as a babysitter. Not just workplace acquaintances who'll stab you in the back the first time you turn around. If you're going to be betrayed nastily, at least have a real relationship to end, rather than some random d-bag you had pizza with at lunch a couple of times, who'd laugh if you spattered funny when a bus crushed your head. Nor should you discuss things work-related with names/details/dates/events that could be tracked back to your job, or you, with ANY account, ever.

Also, unless your real name is absurdly common, don't use it (and especially don't use images of your own face, or an icon that you personally use on accounts identifiable as 'you') on accounts where you indulge in 'controversy'. It has a funny way of finding its way back to you. Plausible deniability can be a big asset. For example, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people using an 'evildave' handle in the world.

Don't ever fill in the 'bio' details on forums, or not with 'real' information, if required. The more public details, the more easily your 'anonymous' account is matched to you.

Great advice!!!

[JamesEvens]

I think this sets a horrible precedent. While I understand the implications of "Good order and Discipline" from the UCMJ and the need to have a unified department when dealing with the public, as seems to be the case here. The fact the a "constitutional officer" is free from suit because suing him in his official capacity means that the state/commonwealth is also sued is nothing more than hiding behind the law.
I read the Order awarding summary judgment to the defendant. It definitely was a good read. It seems what we have is a Sheriff of Nottingham who cannot be touched because he is an Officer of the King. To rebuke the Sheriff is identical to rebuking the King and is punishable by death.
The Sheriff is fallible. The King is fallible. The Pope is fallible. The Judge is fallible. I am fallible. Why? Because we are human.

[deepsand]

JamesEvens, on 02 May 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

I think this sets a horrible precedent.

Since this case makes no findings re. previously undecided issues, there is no precedent. And, even if it did, such would apply only to the Jurisdiction presided over by the Judge in question.

JamesEvens, on 02 May 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

While I understand the implications of "Good order and Discipline" from the UCMJ and the need to have a unified department when dealing with the public, as seems to be the case here. The fact the a "constitutional officer" is free from suit because suing him in his official capacity means that the state/commonwealth is also sued is nothing more than hiding behind the law.

The Judge here did not rule based on the lack of ability to sue the Sheriff, nor did he rule that the Sheriff could never be personally sued. His ruling rests on the finding that the speech in question was of a personal nature, not that of a public interest.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 02 May 2012 - 07:06 PM

[dantynan]

AtlasFriedman, on 30 April 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

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.

The problem here is that employer in this instance is not a private entity, it's an office of the state. And the states are required to uphold the First Amendment just as much as the Federal government is. The man was running for elective office, his employees engaged in speech he disapproved of, and he terminated their employment as punishment. IANAL, but that looks like a clear breach of the First Amendment to me.

dt