海角大神

Facebook and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging a Virginia judge鈥檚 ruling that determined 鈥渓iking鈥� certain content on Facebook is not protected speech for public employees.

In April, US District Judge Raymond Jackson in Norfolk, Va., threw out a wrongful termination suit by six former employees of the Hampton Sheriff鈥檚 Department. They said their firing last year was retaliation for 鈥渓iking鈥� the political opponent of Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts in an election.

Judge Jackson said that, while public employees can speak as citizens about public concerns, meaning it is constitutionally protected speech, the privilege does not extend to symbolic expression 鈥� such as clicking a like button to follow a certain cause, person, or group.

鈥淪imply liking a Facebook page is insufficient. It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection,鈥� Jackson wrote in his ruling.

Sheriff Roberts fired the deputies following the election, which he won. According to the appeal brief for the deputies, he had issued a warning before the election that they stay off the Facebook page of his opponent, which they said indicated their firings were linked to their social-media actions. Roberts told the Associated Press that the terminations resulted from poor job performance and that their actions online 鈥渉indered the harmony and efficiency of the office.鈥�

The six deputies are appealing the court ruling to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday, the ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the appeal. That brief describes Jackson鈥檚 conclusion, distinguishing symbolic action from written postings, as 鈥渆rroneous.鈥�

鈥淯nder the district court鈥檚 reasoning, affixing a bumper sticker to your car, pinning a campaign pin to your shirt, or placing a sign on your lawn would be devoid of meaning absent further information, and therefore not entitled to constitutional protection because of the minimal effort these actions require. All of these acts are, of course, constitutionally protected,鈥� the brief reads.

In its own amicus brief, filed Monday, Facebook said Jackson鈥檚 ruling was 鈥渂ased on an apparent misunderstanding of the way Facebook works鈥� and that the 鈥渞esulting decision clashes with decades of precedent and bedrock First Amendment principles.鈥� The social network tallies about 3 billion likes and comments every day from 500 million users, the company says.

The judge鈥檚 ruling 鈥渃an have a big effect in narrowing what we define as speech and putting on notice all kinds of employees, including some in the private sector, that speech isn鈥檛 speech unless鈥� it鈥檚 oral or written, says Bruce Barry, a professor of management and sociology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville and author of 鈥淪peechless: the Erosion of Free Expression in the American Workplace.鈥�

Employees in the private sector generally face stricter rules regarding social-media use, with some employers monitoring online behavior and even, in some cases, restricting social-media access in the workplace. However, those policies have been challenged when they鈥檝e been linked to retaliation against the employee, and in some cases, the courts have ruled that specific policies are too broadly written.

Provisions under the National Labor Relations Act and Electronic Communications Privacy Act have provided whistle-blowers protections in these kinds of cases.

Last year, the National Labor Relations Board settled with ambulance company American Medical Response following the company鈥檚 firing of a Connecticut driver after she posted negative comments about her supervisor on Facebook. The negative comments, the NLRB said, were protected speech under federal labor laws, and the company had to rewrite its social-media policy to correct some provisions that were 鈥渙verly broad鈥� and 鈥渦nlawful.鈥�

Public employees also have the right to express themselves online, but are typically not allowed to publicly campaign while at work, says Marcus Messner, a journalism professor at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond who specializes in social-media research. Mr. Messner says he does not expect Jackson鈥檚 ruling to be upheld but says if it is, 鈥渋t will change how people interact on social media.鈥�

鈥淚f this ruling is upheld, employees have to be worried that a very basic communication on a social-media platform can lead to their firing,鈥� he says. 鈥淢ost people know they should not be talking bad about their job or boss, but to have a political expression in your private life lead to your firing 鈥� I think that would change how we communicate online.鈥�

It is not yet clear whether the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case.