

Facebook 'Like' is Protected Speech, Appeals Court Says - mcphilip
http://about.bloomberglaw.com/legal-news/facebook-like-is-protected-speech-appeals-court-says/?utm_source=tw

======
hawkharris
Of course "likes" are protected! They're a form of voting and, in this case,
expressing political opinions.

Speech about politics, science and the arts generally enjoys stronger
protection under the First Amendment.

~~~
chrismcb
Clicking "like" on something in facebook is nothing like a form of voting. It
is a form of subscription. It says you want to get updates about the thing you
"liked." Maybe you hate the competitor, but you want to get notified if
something newsworthy happens. So you "like" him. I'm not sure it falls under
free speech, because you are really saying anything other than "I'm interested
in knowing more about this subject"

~~~
biot
Clicking "Like" on a Fluffy Bunnies fan page isn't merely a subscription. It
also broadcasts to everyone "chrismcb liked Fluffy Bunnies". I'm guessing that
most people consider the subscription nature of liking an item secondary to
the statement of support of that item.

Further to that, in Facebook you can click the down-arrow next to a post and
select "Follow Post". This is the pure subscription act minus the protected
speech.

------
jfasi
Could anyone shed some light on the meaning of "protected speech?" There was
some hubbub concerning people being targeted by law enforcement for statements
made on Facebook and Google searches. Would an expansion of the definition of
protected speech curb these sorts of police actions?

~~~
rayiner
Protected speech is just speech that isn't not protected. That is to say, the
default rule is that speech is protected, unless it falls into certain
categories of exceptions.

I don't know of any credible story about people being prosecuted for Google
searches. The prosecutions for Facebook comments tend to boil down to the
police arguing that the comments are threats, which fall into one of the
exceptions for unprotected speech.

~~~
vec
In this case the test was "substantive speech". IANAL, but my layman's
understanding is that in order for some action to be protected under free
speech laws it has to intentionally communicating some coherent message.

So, for example, if I was kicked out of a restaurant for not wearing shoes I
couldn't generally claim free speech protections for my lack of footwear.
However if I did so as part of some theoretical organized protest involving
shoes then I could, as in the second case my unshod state was clearly intended
to convey some message.

~~~
lwf
Except you don't have free speech protections in restaurants; they're private
establishments that are free to restrict speech as they see fit, provided they
are not discriminating on the basis of your membership in a protected class.

------
antihero
So ok, I think one interesting hypothetical would be that someone in your
company publicly "likes" the Aryan Brotherhood Facebook page (though I doubt
such thing exists and it would likely be some derivative). Could you sack your
employee for being a total racist?

I guess it would technically boil down to what the actual impact on people at
work would be. Do you have an employee who is an ethnic minority who feels
threatened by this? Do they actively threaten them? It is complicated.

If we truly see ourselves as liberal and tolerant, how exactly should we react
to someone who is openly part of an intolerant group who is offensive to our
viewpoint? Do we draw a line somewhere?

Lots of questions, ethical and legal.

~~~
jemfinch
> Could you sack your employee for being a total racist?

If you're in any of the 49 at-will employment states, you can sack your
employee because you flipped a coin and it landed the wrong way. Hypotheticals
about firing people aren't ever really interesting in those states. It's not
complicated, and it wouldn't "technically" boil down to anything.

~~~
brandoncapecci
At will employment doesn't nullify wrongful termination suits.

------
vilhelm_s
The opinion itself is here:
[http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf](http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf)

------
loceng
I would have linking to something online would be protected under free speech,
too.

