• Home
  • About

walshslaw

perspectives on law, from Richmond VA

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Volokh, Garnett, Paulsen, Zick, Lee, Chen, & Krotoszynski on McCullen v. Coakley
The Little Sisters of the Poor: Ordinarily in Their Homes for the Elderly Poor, but Today in Federal Court »

“Liking” a Facebook campaign page “is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one’s front yard” (4th Cir. 2013)

September 18, 2013 by Kevin C. Walsh

A split panel of the Fourth Circuit today reinstated the free speech and free association claims of some sheriff’s deputies in Hampton, Virginia who alleged that they had been fired from their jobs for supporting the incumbent sheriff’s political opponent. Among the issues in the case was whether clicking “Like” on the challenger’s campaign page was speech within the protection of the First Amendment. The district court said no: “merely ‘liking’ a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.” But the Fourth Circuit today disagreed. Here is the relevant portion of the Court’s analysis (discussing the claim of one Carter):

Here, Carter visited the Jim Adams’s campaign Facebook page (the “Campaign Page”), which was named “Jim Adams for the Hampton Sheriff,” and he clicked the “like” button on the Campaign Page. When he did so the Campaign Page’s name and a photo of Adams –which an Adams campaign representative had selected as the Page’s icon – were added to Carter’s profile, which all Facebook users could view. On Carter’s profile, the Campaign Page name served as a link to the Campaign Page. Carter’s clicking on the  “like” button also caused an announcement that Carter liked the Campaign Page to appear in the news feeds of Carter’s friends. And it caused Carter’s name and his profile photo to be added to the Campaign Page’s “People [Who] Like This” list.

Once one understands the nature of what Carter did by liking the Campaign Page, it becomes apparent that his conduct qualifies as speech. On the most basic level, clicking on the “like” button literally causes to be published the statement that the User “likes” something, which is itself a substantive statement. In the context of a political campaign’s Facebook page, the meaning that the user approves of the candidacy whose page is being liked is unmistakable. That a user may use a single mouse click to produce that message that he likes the page instead of typing the same message with several individual key strokes is of no constitutional significance.

Aside from the fact that liking the Campaign Page constituted pure speech, it also was symbolic expression. The distribution of the universally understood “thumbs up” symbol in association with Adams’s campaign page, like the actual text that liking the page produced, conveyed that Carter supported Adams’s candidacy. See Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974) (per curiam) (holding that person engaged in expressive conduct when there was “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message . . ., and in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it”); see also Tobey v. Jones,  706 F.3d 379, 388 n.3 (4th Cir. 2013).

In sum, liking a political candidate’s campaign page communicates the user’s approval of the candidate and supports the campaign by associating the user with it. In this way, it  is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in  one’s front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is  substantive speech. See City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43,  54-56 (1994). Just as Carter’s placing an “Adams for Sheriff” sign in his front yard would have conveyed to those passing his home that he supported Adams’s campaign, Carter’s liking Adams’s  Campaign Page conveyed that message to those viewing his profile  or the Campaign Page.15 In fact, it is hardly surprising that  the record reflects that this is exactly how Carter’s action was  understood. See J.A. 160 (McCoy’s testimony that in light of  Carter’s liking Adams’s Campaign Page, “everybody was saying  that . . . Carter is out of there because he supported Adams  openly”); see also J.A. 793 (Sheriff’s Office employee stating  that Roberts had said that “certain employees were on the  Facebook page of his opponent, Jim Adams, indicating their support of Adams for Sheriff”).

All of this sounds just right.

Chief Judge Traxler wrote the opinion for the court in Bland v. Roberts, in which Judge Thacker joined.  Judge Hollander (D.Md., sitting by designation) wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. The judges were not split on the liking-as-speech issue but on the application of qualified immunity, a split largely traceable to different views about the scope of the en banc holding in Jenkins v. Medford, 119 F.3d 1156 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

Share this:

  • Share
  • Email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Print
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Fourth Circuit, Law | Tagged Elrod-Branti, Facebook, free speech, Hampton, Hollander, sheriff, Thacker, Traxler | 1 Comment

One Response

  1. on September 19, 2013 at 4:55 pm Defibs

    Hello! I know this is somewhat off-topic however I had
    to ask. Does building a well-established website such as yours take a large amount oof work?

    I’m brand new to writing a blog however I do write in my
    journal on a daily basis. I’d ljke to start a blog so I will be able
    to share my experience and feelings online. Please let me know if you have any kind of
    recommendations or tips for btand new aspiring blog owners.
    Appreciate it!



Comments are closed.

  • Twitter Feed

    • RT @bpdflores: The unborn children, the most vulnerable among us, plead for justice and protection. They are not ashamed to make this plea… 3 hours ago
    Follow @kevincwalsh
  • Archives

    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • April 2014
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
  • Categories

    • Catholic
    • Fourth Circuit
    • Law
    • News
  • Pages

    • About
  • Popular Tags

    5000A abortion ACA ACCA Affordable Care Act Agee amicus curiae Anti-Injunction Act Baltimore Catholic class action conspiracy contraception contraceptives mandate Cuccinelli Davis Diaz DOMA Duncan en banc Establishment Clause evidence facial challenge First Amendment Floyd FOIA Fourth Amendment Fourth Circuit Free Exercise Gregory habeas corpus Hamilton HCR healthcare health care healthcare reform health care reform HHS HHS mandate immigration individual mandate interlocutory appeal John Marshall jurisdiction Keenan Keith Kennedy King Lawrence v. Texas Motz Niemeyer partial unconstitutionality piracy preemption religious liberty RFRA Richmond Same-sex marriage Scalia Second Amendment Section 5000A sentencing severability Shedd Sixth Circuit standing suppression Supreme Court Third Circuit Traxler USCCB Virginia Virginia v. Sebelius Wilkinson Wynn

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: