2012年12月19日 星期三


NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — Attorneys for Facebook and the American Civil Liberties Union want a federal appeals court to rule that clicking “Like” on the social networking site is constitutionally-protected free speech.
The case revolves around six employees who were fired by Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts after they supported his re-election opponent in 2009. One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, had “liked” the Facebook page of Roberts’ opponent.
Facebook said clicking `Like’ was the 21st century-equivalent of a campaign yard sign.
“If Carter had stood on a street corner and announced, `I like Jim Adams for Hampton sheriff,’ there would be no dispute that his statement was constitutionally protected speech,” the company wrote in a friend of the court brief filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “Carter made that very statement; the fact that he did it online, with a click of a computer’s mouse, does not deprive Carter’s speech of constitutional protection.”
U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson ruled against the workers in April, saying merely `liking’ a Facebook page was 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,” Raymond wrote.
Facebook and the ACLU want the appeals court to vacate the judge’s decision. The ACLU also is advocating on behalf of the other fired workers who did not click `Like’ but who are also appealing.
Roberts said some of the workers were let go because he wanted to replace them with sworn deputies while others were fired because of poor performance or his belief that their actions “hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office.”
The ACLU argued that doesn’t outweigh the employees’ rights.
“It is binding First Amendment law that irrespective of an employee’s position, a public employer cannot terminate him or her for speech on a matter of public concern unrelated to his or her job duties,” the group wrote.
BY BROCK VERGAKIS 

3 則留言:

  1. 在臉書按讚要小心,一旦因此被炒魷魚,恐怕就虧大了。一起司法案件近日在美國引發討論,有六名警職員在警長競選連任時,到另一位候選人的臉書按讚;連任成功的警長事後將六人開除,六人憤而控告警長違反美國憲法保障的言論自由,但法官判決,按讚不受憲法保障,引發爭議。
    這起官司引發關注,在於地方法院法官傑克森判決認為,在臉書按讚,不符以往美國憲法賦予保障的實質意見陳述。他在判決書中指出,在臉書貼文或評論可受美國憲法第一修正案的保障,按讚屬於不充分的言論(insufficient speech),無法受到憲法保障。

    但原告對地院法官的判決不滿,已上訴到美國第四巡迴上訴法院,未來上訴法院的判決結果為何,備受矚目。

    這起「布蘭德對羅勃茲」官司源於二○○九年的警長選舉。判決書指出,美國維吉尼亞州漢普頓市警長在當年十一月改選,警長羅勃茲爭取連任,但布蘭德等人在競選期間卻跑到另一位參選人亞當斯的臉書按讚。羅勃茲發現後大怒,立刻召開內部會議,表示自己想當多久就當多久;還對副警長卡特說,「選後你就給我滾蛋。」

    羅勃茲當選後,立刻請六位原告和六位雇員捲鋪蓋走路,原因包括預算緊縮、工作績效欠佳及「行為舉止破壞辦公室和諧與效率」等。但布蘭德等人認為羅勃茲秋後算帳,一狀告上維吉尼亞州東區地方法院,控告羅勃茲違反憲法保障的言論自由。

    不過,地方法院在今年四月的判決卻引發爭議,承審法官傑克森判決原告敗訴。

    傑克森在判決書中以其他和臉書貼文有關的訴訟案為例,認為布蘭德等人並未具體陳述個人意見,只在臉書網頁按讚不足以受到憲法保障;在缺乏事證的情況下,讓法院去推測原告的特定意見陳述並不適當,在臉書貼文可視為關切公共事務,但法院不認同布蘭德等言論足以獲得憲法第一修正案保障。



    全文網址: 美國篇/臉書按讚被炒魷魚 告官…敗訴 | 臉書按讚要小心 | 國內要聞 | 聯合新聞網 http://udn.com/news/NATIONAL/NATS1/7290839.shtml#ixzz2FYXBAOvM
    Power By udn.com

    回覆刪除
  2. 資料[Data]:到對手陣營公司按讚而被解雇
    論據[Warrant]:按讚行為表示對其按讚言論之支持
    支持[Backing]:按讚可以取消,表其按讚行為確實出自其自由意志
    限制[Qualifier]:唯當事人宣稱按讚行為出自其他意涵時將出現爭議
    反例[Rebuttal]:當事人宣稱其行為出自習慣而非意志之表達
    宣稱[Claim]:按讚行為屬表達對其按讚言論之支持之行為,故按讚同時等同表示支持敵營

    回覆刪除