When “Like”-Minded People Click: Facebook Interaction Conventions, the Meaning of “Speech” Online, and Bland v. Roberts

Q2 Social Sciences First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2014-07-03 DOI:10.1080/21689725.2014.962557
Susan H. Sarapin, P. Morris
{"title":"When “Like”-Minded People Click: Facebook Interaction Conventions, the Meaning of “Speech” Online, and Bland v. Roberts","authors":"Susan H. Sarapin, P. Morris","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2014.962557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Bland v. Roberts, a public-sector employee sued because he was fired for clicking the Facebook “Like” button on the campaign Website of his employer’s re-election rival. The judge dismissed the free-speech claim stating that “Liking” Web content is not “sufficient” speech to warrant constitutional protection. Employing relevance theory, we explored whether Facebook users’ attitudes and practice indicate the expectation of free-speech protection. Data collected included participants’ “Liking” habits and attitudes about whether “Liking” communicates a message. Two-thirds of the respondents agreed on the meaning of a “Like,” and 81.6% of respondents believed that “Liking” something is communicating a message.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2014.962557","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Amendment Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2014.962557","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

In Bland v. Roberts, a public-sector employee sued because he was fired for clicking the Facebook “Like” button on the campaign Website of his employer’s re-election rival. The judge dismissed the free-speech claim stating that “Liking” Web content is not “sufficient” speech to warrant constitutional protection. Employing relevance theory, we explored whether Facebook users’ attitudes and practice indicate the expectation of free-speech protection. Data collected included participants’ “Liking” habits and attitudes about whether “Liking” communicates a message. Two-thirds of the respondents agreed on the meaning of a “Like,” and 81.6% of respondents believed that “Liking” something is communicating a message.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当“喜欢”的人点击:Facebook互动惯例,在线“演讲”的意义,以及布兰德诉罗伯茨案
在Bland v. Roberts一案中,一名公共部门雇员提起诉讼,因为他在Facebook上点击了其雇主竞选对手竞选网站上的“Like”按钮而被解雇。法官驳回了言论自由的主张,称“点赞”网络内容不足以构成宪法保护的“充分”言论。运用关联理论,我们探讨了Facebook用户的态度和行为是否表明了对言论自由保护的期望。收集的数据包括参与者的“点赞”习惯,以及对“点赞”是否传达了信息的态度。三分之二的受访者同意“点赞”的含义,81.6%的受访者认为“点赞”是在传递信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
First Amendment Studies
First Amendment Studies Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: First Amendment Studies publishes original scholarship on all aspects of free speech and embraces the full range of critical, historical, empirical, and descriptive methodologies. First Amendment Studies welcomes scholarship addressing areas including but not limited to: • doctrinal analysis of international and national free speech law and legislation • rhetorical analysis of cases and judicial rhetoric • theoretical and cultural issues related to free speech • the role of free speech in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., organizations, popular culture, traditional and new media).
期刊最新文献
The digital citizen as technoliberal subject: The politics of constitutive rhetoric in the European Union’s Digital Decade The Supreme Court’s rhetorical construction of home On the censoring of Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb An accounting from Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb The rhetoric of democracy in United States Senate campaign debates
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1