THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH
LawCrossing Legal Daily News Feature
Facebook ‘Likes’ Disliked by Court What is free speech? How far does it extend? What are the standards applicable in your situation? You have to be fully aware of your actions and do thorough legal counseling before clicking on that “like” button on Facebook – former employees in the Hampton Sheriff’s Office found out. In the case of US District Court of Eastern Virginia, Bland v. Roberts, 2012, the learned court held that Facebook “likes” are not protected under the First Amendment, as they do not constitute a form of speech or expression envisaged in the Constitution.
04/30/12
retaliatory to their expressions protected by the First Amendment.
Surprisingly, the court’s logic is clear, and to those of us who understand the law as it is (which may
The court held that “In order to prove that an adverse
change any time with further interpretations from the
employment action violated their First Amendment
court) the court can hardly be blamed for drawing the
right to freedom of speech. The Plaintiffs must satisfy
conclusions it did. However, lawyers of the plaintiff
the three-prong test the United States Court of Appeals
and their associates have been doing their own media
for the Fourth Circuit laid out in McVey v. Stacy, 157
campaign criticizing the court’s decision. To us, given
F.3d 271 (4th Circ. 1998):
that the plaintiffs’ allegation of connecting their job termination with their Facebook ‘likes’ of the candidate
“Thus, to determine whether a public employee
who lost may be true, it also goes to show again that
has stated a claim under the First Amendment
social network activity can be irresponsible and can be
for retaliatory discharge, we must determine (1) whether the public employee was speaking as a
denied protection.
citizen upon a matter of public concern or as an In a nutshell, the case as alleged by the plaintiffs is
employee about a personal matter of personal
that they used to work as civilian employees in the
interest; (2) whether the employee’s interest
Hampton Sheriff’s Office when the Sherrif’s chair fell
in speaking upon the matter of public concern
vacant and there was an election. The election for
outweighed the government’s interest in providing
the chair was between B.J. Roberts and Jim Adams.
effective and efficient services to the public;
The plaintiffs, who worked under Roberts engaged in
and (3) whether the employee’s speech was a
activities of the opponent camp including placing pro-
substantial factor in the employee’s termination
Adams bumper sticker on their cars, attending Adams-
decision.”
sponsored cookout, and ‘liking’ Adams on Facebook These principles are time tested and the court was
page.
entirely logical in applying them to dismiss the case of Eventually, the race was won by Roberts, who became
the plaintiffs with a summary judgment on 24th April.
Sheriff, and promptly made changes to the office
However, what has come out of the controversy is that
making several terminations including the jobs of the
Facebook “likes” in case of employees, may not be
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that Roberts’ actions were
altogether ‘likable.
PAGE
www.lawcrossing.com