Social Networking Policies

chops018

Hey all,

I was thinking today about how in England there have been situations with professional footballers on twitter going on rants etc. It got me thinking about how there are companies over here that make people sign social networking policies. As in they want you to not post up any negative comments about the company on facebook etc. Now obviously they don't want you putting up something defamatory, but what is the legal and or constitutional issues with regard signing such a policy where they want you to refrain from writing anything negative up on your facebook. Could this go so far as to someone saying something like they had a bad day at work such a thing happened (but didn't mention anything) could this lead to a dismissal or to a lesser extent a breach of the policy you signed. Also, could an employee refuse to sign such a policy (should they) and if they did so could they fight a dismissal over it?

It just got me thinking today that companies and other bodies really are invading the privacy of the individual especially when they are telling them how to or not use their social networks. Do you agree/disagree with the above or what do ye think about it all?

Peregrinus

I don't think there's a constitutional or privacy issue here, really. Even before the days of social networks on the internet, it was understood that an employer could expect a degree of loyalty and fidelity from employees, and that bad-mouthing your employer, even outside of a work context, could be a disciplinary matter. I think the issue has been heightened by social networking, because now your bad-mouthing comments can be preserved in cyberspace, can be seen by a much larger number of people and - very important - can be more easily discovered and proved by your employer.

So, policies explicitly adressing this question are becoming more common because the importance of loyalty and fidelity, and the consequences of not being loyal, have been magnified by social networking. But I don't think there's any new principle here. And there is certainly no privacy issue - pretty much by definition, what you post on the internet is not private. It's the opposite of private.

chops018

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think there's a constitutional or privacy issue here, really. Even before the days of social networks on the internet, it was understood that an employer could expect a degree of loyalty and fidelity from employees, and that bad-mouthing your employer, even outside of a work context, could be a disciplinary matter. I think the issue has been heightened by social networking, because now your bad-mouthing comments can be preserved in cyberspace, can be seen by a much larger number of people and - very important - can be more easily discovered and proved by your employer.

So, policies explicitly adressing this question are becoming more common because the importance of loyalty and fidelity, and the consequences of not being loyal, have been magnified by social networking. But I don't think there's any new principle here. And there is certainly no privacy issue - pretty much by definition, what you post on the internet is not private. It's the opposite of private.

What about the freedom of expression to post your opinions. Obviously I know that is a qualified right, but if it was a proportionate comment of your own opinion, and your work found out and attempted to discipline you.

Peregrinus

You can make the freedom of expression case, certainly, but how far it would get you must depend on the facts and circumstances, and on exactly what you said.

Freedom of expression isn't the freedom to express your views without consequences. Obviously, expressing your views on your relationship can have consequences for your relationship, and there's no reason why an employment relationship should be exempted from this general truth.

Let's assume a hypothetical in which you get fired for posting derogatory stuff about your employer on your facebook page. There's a written social networking policy, and you're in breach of it, and the employer has followed all the proper procedures and escalated the matteer through warnings and disciplinary procedures and so forth before firing you, so the issue really comes down to just one question: is the employer's social networking policy void on the grounds of public policy, as being an infringment of your constitutional right to freedom of expression? Obviously that requires a balance to be struck between that right and the employer's constitutional right to its good name and reputation, and constitutional right of association (which allows it to employ or not employ you on terms it considers acceptable). And obviously without seeing the actual policy, and how it has played out in practice with respect to the actual opinion you expressed and the way you expressed it, it's impossible to speculate about how that balance might be struck.

chops018

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can make the freedom of expression case, certainly, but how far it would get you must depend on the facts and circumstances, and on exactly what you said.

Freedom of expression isn't the freedom to express your views without consequences. Obviously, expressing your views on your relationship can have consequences for your relationship, and there's no reason why an employment relationship should be exempted from this general truth.

Let's assume a hypothetical in which you get fired for posting derogatory stuff about your employer on your facebook page. There's a written social networking policy, and you're in breach of it, and the employer has followed all the proper procedures and escalated the matteer through warnings and disciplinary procedures and so forth before firing you, so the issue really comes down to just one question: is the employer's social networking policy void on the grounds of public policy, as being an infringment of your constitutional right to freedom of expression? Obviously that requires a balance to be struck between that right and the employer's constitutional right to its good name and reputation, and constitutional right of association (which allows it to employ or not employ you on terms it considers acceptable). And obviously without seeing the actual policy, and how it has played out in practice with respect to the actual opinion you expressed and the way you expressed it, it's impossible to speculate about how that balance might be struck.

Good arguments there. I didn't really think too much on the employer's side of things, I always look to the little guys rights when thinking about these kind of situations, you always forget the big guys have rights too.