Category Archives: Free Speech

08-08-2012 11:53 CNN's Erin Burnett tackles the firing of an employee who was fired for pressing Facebook's LIKE button.

View original post here:
Is a Facebook "Like" free speech? - Video

Is clicking the like button on Facebook, something millions of users do dozens of times every single day, an act of protected free speech?

According to the purveyors of the like button, yes, it most certainly is.

Facebook makes this assertion in a brief filed in support of a Deputy Sheriff who was fired, he says, because he liked his boss opponent on the social network.

According to court documents, Deputy Sheriff Daniel Ray Carter of Hampton, Virginia liked the page of Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff. As youre well aware, when a user likes a page on Facebook, that information is pushed to ths users Timeline and their friends news feeds. Apparently, this didnt go over too well with Sheriff B.J. Roberts, Carters boss and then incumbent in the election.

Roberts ended up winning and Carter was promptly fired from his position. He claims that he was fired for liking the campaign page of Roberts opponent, Jim Adams. Of course, firing someone for their political beliefs is a no-no in most areas of the country, so Carter sued.

But he was unsuccessful in his suit, as the judge on the case ruled that a Facebook like is not protected as free speech, as it doesnt contain actual statements.

It is the Courts conclusion that merely liking a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed within the record.

Carter has appealed the decision and now Facebook is going to bat for him, arguing that their like is free speech in the same way that a political bumper sticker is free speech. When a Facebook User Likes a Page on Facebook, she engages in speech protected by the First Amendment, says Facebook in the brief.

They go on:

The district courts holding thatliking a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection because it does not involve actual statements, J.A. 1159, betrays amisunderstanding of the nature of the communication at issue and disregards well-settled Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent. Liking a Facebook Page (or other website) is core speech: it is a statement that will be viewed by a small group of Facebook Friends or by a vast community of online users.

Excerpt from:
Facebook Likes Are Definitely Free Speech, Says Facebook

Its a free country for Democrats, too

What do conservatives not understand about free speech? Because they say something, does that mean the rest of us are compelled to agree with them? No. We have the same freedom and are allowed to disagree with statements we find incorrect or distasteful. Mr. Chick-fil-A can say whatever he believes to be true about marriage. Those of us who disagree with his narrow-mindedness can call him narrow-minded. Thats our right!

Free speech does have consequences. Just ask the Dixie Chicks after their criticism of President Bush led to radio stations down South refusing to play their songs and right-wing groups organizing boycotts or mass burnings of their CDs. So dont pretend that conservatives play nice, and its just the left who get carried away, or that its just the Obama administration that tries to silence its critics.

I really enjoy the talk of class warfare, like its something the middle class invented. The rich have been waging warfare against the rest of us since the middle ages ... it took the middle class this long to decide to fight back. When you vote in November, ask yourself whether you want Mitt Romneys 15 percent tax rate raised or lowered. Mines 28 percent. Id think he can afford what I (and most of us) pay. Thats what this election boils down to. Figure out what you paid, and vote with your economic interest in mind ... make Mitt richer, or make Mitt pay what the rest of us pay.

KEN RAPP

Easton

Local business owner appreciates bank ad

A recent ad by Embassy Bank included the headline, Lehigh Valley Business Owners: You DID Build Your Business! As a local business owner, I was encouraged to see that fact recognized. Especially after President Obamas now-famous gaffe: If youve got a business, you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Oh, really?

Our family has been in business here in the Lehigh Valley since 1929. Every generation of Deiter Brothers ownership has worked very hard to provide heating, cooling, fuel oil and propane to Lehigh Valley homes and businesses. Ours is not an easy business. Like many small businesses, ours requires long hours, costly equipment and financial risk. But in the process, business owners help support the local economy by creating jobs and paying taxes. So I join Embassy in saluting any local business owner who puts forth the risks to reap the rewards. Washington may not know who really made your business happen, but we do!

Originally posted here:
Free speech is for all; Embassy Bank ad appreciated - Aug. 7 letters to the editor

federal politics

7 Aug 2012

By Newmatilda.com

Free speech for all - and more of it. Tony Abbott's vision for the media is founded on a blunt and disingenuous notion of freedom of speech. NM on the Opposition Leader's address to the IPA

Not much has been interfering with Tony Abbotts freedom of speech lately. The Opposition Leader has been speeching it up on China, defence spending, mining magnates, you name it. Yesterday, he addressed the IPA on freedom of speech and media regulation.

The take home? More freedom, lessregulation.

Weve heard much of what the Opposition Leader had to say before. Hes against a public interest test for media owners and in favour of impassioned, untrammelled debate. Free speech is an unqualified public good, the more of it we get, the better. Theres no debate about that, right? In fact, in Abbotts hands, free speech is a blunt stick with which to bludgeon thecentre-left.

In a turn worryingly reminiscent of the bad old days of the Culture Wars, Abbott reminded his audience that freedom of speech "is not just an academic nicety". Its real stuff, in the real world. Small-l liberals recoil from the idea of restricting speech and have often struggled to defend legislation which does so. Fostering free speech in the name of democratic debate sounds like a liberal goal, as does Abbotts intention to "increase the number and the range of people who can participate in public debate, not reduceit".

Like it or not, it requires a few academic niceties to unpick who participates in public debate and to what end even if without nuance is the way Abbott likesit.

Abbott laid out the cultural battlelines clearly. David Marr v Andrew Bolt. Philip Adams v Alan Jones. Either youre with us, or you aint. Read the whole speech here.

Go here to see the original:
Betty There is free speech

In America you can say pretty much whatever you want, wherever you want to say it. Unless, that is, youre at work. Simply put, there is no First Amendment right to free speech in the workplacepotentially perilous for many employees in a polarized political year with a tight presidential race.

Current news provides plenty of examples of just how much leeway managers have to limit their workers freedom of speech, or to encourage political activity among employees. On Aug. 2, an Arizona-based medical supplies manufacturer, Vante, dismissed CFO Adam Smith for berating a Tucson Chick-fil-A employee for working at what he considered a homophobic company. Chick-fil-A has made national headlines recently for its presidents controversial comments about same-sex marriage.

I dont know how you live with yourself and work here, Smith says in a video of the exchange, which was posted on YouTube (GOOG). This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. You deserve better. Vante quickly fired Smith, and posted its regrets about the incident in a statement on the home page of its website.

Bosses and those who work under them are not equal when it comes to free-speech legal claims. Employers have the right to take action against any employee who engages in political speech that company leaders find offensive. With a few narrow exceptions the Constitution and the federal laws derived from it only protect a persons right to expression from government interference, not from the restrictions a private employer may impose, lawyers say.

Employers are not similarly restricted in expressing their political views or encouraging support for a particular candidate or cause. Not only can employers remind employees of the upcoming election and encourage them to vote, but they can base continued employment on whether a worker agrees to contribute money or time to the bosss favorite political candidate, so long as theres no state law prohibiting it. (Eight states and the District of Columbia have laws protecting employees from such mandates.)

Consider the case of David Siegel, founder of Orlando (Fla.)-based Westgate Resorts, the nations biggest time-share developer and the man behind what is planned to be the largest house in America. In February, Siegel told Bloomberg Businessweek that his efforts were largely responsible for the 2000 election of President George W. Bush. Im not bragging, Im just stating the fact: I personally got George W. Bush elected, he said. I had my managers do a survey on every employee. If they liked Bush, we made them register to vote. But not if they liked Gore. Siegel also said his companys call center made 80,000 calls on behalf of Bushs campaign.

While federal statutes such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the National Labor Relations Act limit companies rights to fire or hire workers and prevent them from joining unions, these restrictions are based only on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, and a few other protected categories. Political opinion isnt protected by any of these statutes.

The First Amendment applies only to employees of the government in certain situations, and all citizens when theyre confronted by the government, says Mark Trapp, an employment lawyer with Epstein Baker Green in Chicago. In other words, freedom to speak your mind doesnt really exist in work spaces.

Its a limitation that retired Air Force Colonel Morris Davis knows well. The former prosecutor of the Guantanamo Bay military commissions, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, resigned over what he perceived as systematic mistreatment and abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers at the detention camp. After taking a job with the Library of Congress, he was fired in late 2009 for refusing to recant the contents of pieces published in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post criticizing the Obama administrations failure to close the prison.

I was shocked to see the limits of the First Amendment, Morris says. We like to think that our rights are carved in granite, but instead it turns out theyre carved in sand. Morris now teaches law at Howard University; the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the Library of Congress seeking Morriss reinstatement.

Read the original:
Freedom of Speech? Not at Work

Re "Crackdown on free speech backfires, again (Editorials, Aug. 3): One has to wonder if those criticizing the trampling of free speech would have taken that same strident angle if chicken man, Dan Cathy, had publicly expressed support for segregated schools, another Chinese exclusion act or the rights of child molesters to write, publish and sell books describing how to hunt their prey.

In this great chicken debacle, we have witnessed, yet again, another example of accepted discrimination toward LGBT humans and otherwise discerning people lapping up a red herring excuse to cover the real intention, which is to prevent full equality for LGBT Americans.

Free speech threatened? Really? Tell that to the mothers of children who've committed suicide due to "free speech" bullying in our nation's schools.

Disgustingly, the vast majority were not there to support the First Amendment. On the contrary, they were there to show support for denying the 14th Amendment to LGBT people.

-- Angela F. Luna, Sacramento

Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "Report Abuse" link to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

Continued here:
Free speech used to trample on others' rights

04-08-2012 07:24 On August 4th, 1987 the Federal Communications Commission unanimously voted to repeal the fairness doctrine, its policy requiring broadcasters to air all sides of a controversial issue. Despite its lofty name, the fairness doctrine was abolished over concerns that it had a chilling effect on free speech. "It does sound great," says George Mason University's Thomas Hazlett, "but the fact is there is a frontal conflict between the first amendment...and the government considering whether or not the fairness of a particular report passes muster." Hazlett sat down with ReasonTV's Nick Gillespie to discuss the fairness doctrine, its repeal, and why we are unlikely to see it instituted again. About 9 minutes. Interview by Nick Gillespie. Shot by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg. Edited by Bragg. Go to for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Follow this link:
Celebrating the End of the Fairness Doctrine - Video

In America you can say pretty much whatever you want, wherever you want to say it. Unless, that is, youre at work. Simply put, there is no First Amendment right to free speech in the workplacepotentially perilous for many employees in a polarized political year with a tight presidential race.

Current news provides plenty of examples of just how much leeway managers have to limit their workers freedom of speech, or to encourage political activity among employees. On Aug. 2, an Arizona-based medical supplies manufacturer, Vante, dismissed CFO Adam Smith for berating a Tucson Chick-fil-A employee for working at what he considered a homophobic company. Chick-fil-A has made national headlines recently for its presidents controversial comments about same-sex marriage.

I dont know how you live with yourself and work here, Smith says in a video of the exchange, which was posted on YouTube (GOOG). This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. You deserve better. Vante quickly fired Smith, and posted its regrets about the incident in a statement on the home page of its website.

Bosses and those who work under them are not equal when it comes to free-speech legal claims. Employers have the right to take action against any employee who engages in political speech that company leaders find offensive. With a few narrow exceptions the Constitution and the federal laws derived from it only protect a persons right to expression from government interference, not from the restrictions a private employer may impose, lawyers say.

Employers are not similarly restricted in expressing their political views or encouraging support for a particular candidate or cause. Not only can employers remind employees of the upcoming election and encourage them to vote, but they can base continued employment on whether a worker agrees to contribute money or time to the bosss favorite political candidate, so long as theres no state law prohibiting it. (Eight states and the District of Columbia have laws protecting employees from such mandates.)

Consider the case of David Siegel, founder of Orlando (Fla.)-based Westgate Resorts, the nations biggest time-share developer and the man behind what is planned to be the largest house in America. In February, Siegel told Bloomberg Businessweek that his efforts were largely responsible for the 2000 election of President George W. Bush. Im not bragging, Im just stating the fact: I personally got George W. Bush elected, he said. I had my managers do a survey on every employee. If they liked Bush, we made them register to vote. But not if they liked Gore. Siegel also said his companys call center made 80,000 calls on behalf of Bushs campaign.

While federal statutes such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the National Labor Relations Act limit companies rights to fire or hire workers and prevent them from joining unions, these restrictions are based only on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, and a few other protected categories. Political opinion isnt protected by any of these statutes.

The First Amendment applies only to employees of the government in certain situations, and all citizens when theyre confronted by the government, says Mark Trapp, an employment lawyer with Epstein Baker Green in Chicago. In other words, freedom to speak your mind doesnt really exist in work spaces.

Its a limitation that retired Air Force Colonel Morris Davis knows well. The former prosecutor of the Guantanamo Bay military commissions, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, resigned over what he perceived as systematic mistreatment and abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers at the detention camp. After taking a job with the Library of Congress, he was fired in late 2009 for refusing to recant the contents of pieces published in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post criticizing the Obama administrations failure to close the prison.

I was shocked to see the limits of the First Amendment, Morris says. We like to think that our rights are carved in granite, but instead it turns out theyre carved in sand. Morris now teaches law at Howard University; the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the Library of Congress seeking Morriss reinstatement.

View original post here:
Where Free Speech Goes to Die: The Workplace

01-08-2012 17:58 Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day wasn't just for breakfast. Lunch was overflowing at the Chick-fil-A across from the Tucson Mall on Oracle Road. While not everyone necessarily agreed about the Biblical definition of marriage, everyone agreed that Chick-fil-A has a right to free speech! Mike Shaw reports for

See the rest here:
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day in Tucson from http://www.mikeshaw.tv - Video

BY JOSH MCGHEE AND CASEY TONER Staff Reporters August 1, 2012 12:34PM

Lines stretched out onto Wabash ave. (at Chicago ave.) as customers attended Chick fil A Appreciation Day about 1pm Wednesday Aug.1, 2012. | Rich Hein~Sun-Times

storyidforme: 34504881 tmspicid: 12626780 fileheaderid: 5775096

Updated: August 1, 2012 9:09PM

Call it free speech chicken.

For many who went to eat at Chicago-area Chick-fil-As Wednesday amidst calls to support the company presidents anti-gay marriage stance, it didnt come down to whether they agreed with him or not.

Rather, they said, it was simply to show they supported Dan Cathys right to espouse his beliefs beliefs that they said shouldnt impact whether another Chick-fil-A should be allowed to open in the city.

I came out to support freedom of speech, said Bob Matter, a paralegal and self-described atheist, liberal and supporter of gay marriage. Matter, like hundreds of others, flocked to the Chick-fil-A at 30 E. Chicago. There should be no government limits on what you believe.

Support even came from members of the gay community like Amnwari Ndlay-Owusa, a South African who is a student at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

As long as I dont get discriminated against, I respect his opinion because its his opinion, he said while eating at the restaurant with friends.

Continue reading here:
Anti-gay marriage controversy draws crowd to local Chick-fil-As