- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
In 2009, Daniel Ray Carter, Jr., a sheriff’s deputy from Hampton, Virginia, “liked” a Facebook page supporting “Jim Adams for Hampton Sheriff.” Unfortunately for Carter, Adams lost the election and Sheriff B.J. Roberts won re-election. After beating out Adams in the election, Roberts declined to retain Carter and several other employees who had supported Adams during the election.
Carter and the other employees sued Roberts alleging that Roberts had violated their First Amendment rights of speech and association by not retaining them in retaliation of their support of Adams. In April 2012, Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to Roberts.
Judge Jackson applied the Fourth Circuit, three-prong McVey v. Stacy test and noted that the “test necessarily requires that speech exists before an evaluation of the remaining prongs can occur.” Ultimately, Judge Jackson concluded that “merely ‘liking’ a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection” and that a Facebook “like” is not an actual, substantive statement protected by the First Amendment. Finding that no speech had occurred in Carter’s case, an evaluation under the remaining McVey prongs was unnecessary.
Carter has since appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit.
In an online article for the First Amendment Center, First Amendment scholar David Hudson criticized Judge Jackson’s decision, noting that the decision “seemed to downplay the reality that [Carter] had engaged in pure political speech”–”the core type of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect.”
Last week, both the ACLU and Facebook filed amicus briefs in the case arguing that Facebook “likes” should be considered constitutionally protected speech. The Facebook brief compared “likes” such as Carter’s to “the 21st-century equivalent of a front-yard campaign sign” and suggested that the district court decision was “based on an apparent misunderstanding of the way Facebook works . . . .”
In a Washington Post article, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh said that the Fourth Circuit is likely to reverse the district court. However, “[i]f the 4th Circuit agrees with the judge–that liking is not protected speech–that would suggest an overturning of precedents.”
– Kathleen Meyers
Recent Blog Posts
- Neiman Marcus Shoppers Suffer Financial Injuries! Possibly
- Facebook Gears up for Trademark Fight With Brazilian Competitor
- Draft Kings: A fantasy sports betting website valued close to $1 Billion
- Are Design Patents Really a Wise Investment Now?
- The Door Left Ajar: Navigating the Patent-Antitrust Paradox in Light of King Drug Co. v. GlaxoSmithKline
- Will Feds Preempt Tougher State Data Breach Laws?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution