No, it is not protected speech. The judge decided that clicking 'like' isn't the same as making a real statement. Previous court cases that protected speech involved actual words, either written or spoken. A 'like' is just one click, and the judge said the court can't guess what a person meant to say with that single action. Because it wasn't considered real speech, the employees' lawsuit for being fired over it couldn't move forward.

No, the Sheriff did not violate the plaintiffs' rights because they did not present enough evidence to prove their claims. Most of the plaintiffs' actions, like 'liking' a Facebook page, were not significant enough to count as protected speech on important public issues. One plaintiff's actual statement seemed more like a personal complaint than speech on a public concern. There also wasn't clear proof that the Sheriff even knew about most of the plaintiffs' supposed activities, since they tried to keep it secret. Without showing the Sheriff knew, the plaintiffs can't prove it was a main factor in their firing. For similar reasons, the plaintiffs didn't show the Sheriff knew about their claimed association with his opponent. Even if he did, he may have been allowed to demand political loyalty from certain employees. Lastly, the Sheriff has legal protections against these kinds of lawsuits because the rights weren't totally clear here.

No, merely 'liking' a political candidate's Facebook page does not constitute constitutionally protected speech. The court reasoned that a Facebook 'like' is not a substantive statement and lacks the actual content necessary to warrant First Amendment protection. Unlike cases involving written posts or comments, a 'like' is a single click of a button from which the court cannot and will not infer specific content or a particular message. Because the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient expressive speech, their First Amendment retaliation claims fail on the first prong of the applicable legal test.

No, the Sheriff did not violate the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights because the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims of retaliation and political association. For the retaliation claim, most of the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that they engaged in expressive speech that touched on a matter of public concern. Actions like 'liking' a Facebook page or placing a bumper sticker, without more, do not constitute protected speech. For the one plaintiff who made an actual statement, it appeared to be a personal grievance rather than speech on a matter of public concern. Additionally, there was insufficient evidence that the Sheriff was aware of most of the plaintiffs' alleged speech or association. The plaintiffs mostly kept their alleged support for the opponent private. Without proof of knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot show their speech or association was a substantial factor in their termination. For the freedom of association claim, the plaintiffs also failed to provide evidence beyond speculation that the Sheriff knew of their alleged association with his opponent. Even if he had, the Sheriff may have been justified in demanding political loyalty from his deputies and employees in policymaking or confidential roles. Finally, the Sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs' rights were not clearly established in this context, and to Eleventh Amendment immunity from the official capacity claims as a state constitutional officer.

Bland v. Roberts

Rule of Law:

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

Premium Content

Issue:

Opinions:

Majority - Jackson, J.

Analysis:

Gunnerbot