Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Are news publishers directly liable for embedding tweets that contain images not created by that tweeter?
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
April 29, 2012, 12:30 a.m.
Audience & Social
LINK: arstechnica.com  ➚   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   April 29, 2012

Ars Technica’s Venkat Balasubramani and Eric Goldman note the case of Bland v. Roberts, where three sheriff’s department workers argue they were fired because they had “liked” the Facebook page of their boss’ electoral opponent. The court says a Facebook like does not qualify as protected First Amendment speech:

It is the court’s conclusion that merely “liking” a Facebook page is 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.

First Amendment jurisprudence, of course, has held that many non-verbal, non-written acts qualify for protected status (memorably flag burning).

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 45,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Are news publishers directly liable for embedding tweets that contain images not created by that tweeter?
A New York federal judge ruled that when publishers from The Boston Globe to Vox Media to Breitbart “caused the embedded tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right.”
What strategies work best for increasing trust in local newsrooms? Trusting News has some ideas
“It’s not so much about gaming Facebook’s algorithm or working with the Facebook changes as much as it is taking advantage of Facebook as a truly social platform.”
Should we consider fake news another form of (not particularly effective) political persuasion — or something more dangerous?
Plus: The lines between “fake news” and psyops, the Russians shared real news too, and “reality apathy.”