In 1976 Elrod vs. Burns made firing a public employee more difficult by ruling the loss of constitutionally protected rights must be outweighed by the benefit gained in such a firing. 1990's Rutan vs. Republican Party of Illinois ruled that the precedent case of Elrod and Branti extend to the instances of hiring, promotion, transfers, and recall. However, the impersonality of today's social media blurs the lines of whether these cases apply or not.
A more recent case actually being heard by the Supreme Court is Elonis v. United States. In this case, Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting several threats on his Facebook page, including some aimed at his wife, other employees, police officers, an FBI agent, and a kindergarten class. It has been argued that 18 U.S.C. §875 requires subjective intent to convict. The Supreme Court was a bit more inclined to take the case because of the first amendment. However, a majority of the previous courts tended to reject first amendment arguments to 18 U.S.C. §875. This applies to employers and even college admissions departments because this is a typical problem that employers and colleges alike may run into. But the decision of such a case may determine whether it is constitutional or not to hire, fire, accept, or reject people based on their social media updates and posts. In Palmieri v. United States, the plaintiff claimed that his fourth-amendment rights were violated. The plaintiff claimed that a 'friend' shared his on-line postings with his government agency employer. The plaintiff claimed that the online posting caused his government agency employer to unconstitutionally and illegally fire him. The court ruled that the plaintiff's fourth-amendment right were not violated as he had voluntarily shared information with third parties. The plaintiff's voluntary sharing of information means that the government never forced him to share the information he posted online and got fired for.
