Free speech protection for Facebook ‘likes’ by public employees
By Kelly W Craven
Last week, in Bland v Roberts, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit handed a constitutional victory to Facebook and two plaintiffs who lost their jobs after displaying online support for the incumbent’s opponent in a sheriff’s election. Reversing the district court decision, which said that ‘liking’ a Facebook page was not sufficient ‘expressive speech’ to warrant First Amendment protection, the appellate court ruled that the act was ‘pure speech’ as well as symbolic expression.
In 2009, Sheriff B J Roberts of the Hampton Sheriff’s Office in Virginia ran for re-election after having served for 17 years. He was opposed by Jim Adams, who retired from the sheriff’s office as a lieutenant colonel to run for election. Upon his re-election, Roberts reappointed all but 12 employees. Six of those subsequently sued for retaliation and violation of their First Amendment rights to support his political opponent. Two of those fired employees, deputies Daniel Carter and Robert McCoy, claimed they were punished for ‘liking’ Adams’ Facebook campaign page.
The evidence of Roberts’s animus was strong. During a shift change speech, Roberts expressed his disapproval of employee support for Adams on Facebook, claiming that he would be sheriff for as long as he wanted, indicating that Adams’ train was the ‘short train’, and implying that open allegiance with his opponent would cost people their jobs. Roberts specifically told Carter, ‘You made your bed, and now you’re going to lie in it — after the election, you’re gone.’…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
The authors analyse two decisions by the US Supreme Court that narrow the circumstances under which employers can be held liable for retaliation or harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ninth Circuit eliminates presumption of irreparable injury for plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions in trademark cases
The Ninth Circuit has ruled that a trademark plaintiff must establish a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain a preliminary injunction in a trademark case.