Image by GOIABA
The "like" button on Facebook seems like a relatively clear way to express your support for something, but a federal judge says that doesn't mean clicking it is constitutionally protected speech.
Exactly what a "like" means -- if anything -- played a part in a case in Virginia involving six people who say Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts fired them for supporting an opponent in his 2009 re-election bid, which he won. The workers sued, saying their First Amendment rights were violated.
Roberts said some of the workers were let go because he wanted to replace them with sworn deputies while others were fired because of poor performance or his belief that their actions "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office."
One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, had "liked" the Facebook page of Roberts' opponent, Jim Adams.
While public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson ruled that clicking the "like" button does not amount to expressive speech. In other words, it's not the same as actually writing out a message and posting it on the site.
The case enters a murky legal area: Previous cases have dealt with postings on social networks such as Facebook, but there are no explicit words in this situation. Marcus Messner, a journalism and mass communications professor at Virginia Commonwealth University who specializes in social media, said it was likely the matter would have to be settled by a higher court.
"Going to a candidate's Facebook page and liking it in my view is a political statement. It's not a very deep one, but you're making a statement when you like a person's Facebook page," Messner said.
James Shoemaker, an attorney for one of the fired workers, said he was surprised by Jackson's April 24 opinion and order and would appeal it.
Jackson acknowledged that other courts have ruled that Facebook posts are constitutionally protected speech, but he said in those cases there were "actual statements." Simply clicking a button is much different and doesn't warrant First Amendment protection, he wrote.
"The court will not attempt to infer the actual content of Carter's post from one click of a button on Adams' Facebook page," Jackson wrote.
