In a world where everything from breaking news to the picture of an adorable animal seems to be only a Facebook post or Tweet away, the world of technology is constantly changing how we receive and view news.

From what they had for dinner to how many reps they did at the gym, people are granting public access to their lives one status update at a time. While it is at the discretion of each individual just how much they want to share with the world, their employers may have a different view.

Many companies, especially those in fields with sensitive information, have created policies on what their employees can and cannot say on social networking sites. In a society where technology is evolving faster than legislative bodies can regulate it, some companies have been left grasping at straws when they find themselves in the middle of a social networking controversy.

In Columbus, one firefighter resigned and two firefighters and a police officer were suspended after the now former firefighter made a questionable Facebook post and the three others “liked” the post.

The City of Columbus does not have a policy regulating Facebook or other social networking sites from employee’s personal computers. The city does however, have strict guidelines what can and cannot be viewed on the Internet or equipment belonging to the city.

The city’s employee handbook states: “The equipment, services and technology provided to access the Internet remain at all times the property of the City of Columbus. As such, the City of Columbus reserves the right to monitor Internet traffic, and retrieve and read any data composed, sent, or received through our online connections and stored in our computer systems.”

None of the men were accused of viewing the Facebook post from city-owned computers, however, the three who “liked” the post were called before the mayor and city council to face disciplinary action.

In a 3-3 split, with Mayor Robert Smith casting the tie breaking vote, the three were suspended for 30 days without pay.

For the two firefighters, the fire department views the suspension as 30 calendar days. For the police officer, however, he will be suspended for 30 working days which equal four missed paychecks.

“These guys are getting screwed,” Dr. Mark Goodman stated flatly. Goodman is a professor of Communication at Mississippi State University, where he teaches Media Law.

According to Goodman, without a policy in place, the city went beyond its reach when it suspended the men, violating their First Amendment rights.

“If there is no policy, there is no legitimate state interest,” Goodman said.

Goodman said the mayor and council used “unbridled discretion” when they voted to suspend the men.

“Without a stated policy the mayor’s actions are an unconstitutional regulation of free speech.” Goodman said. “It is not the job of the mayor to create policy. It is his job to carry out policy.”

Those who support the decision of the mayor and council have argued that as employees of the City of Columbus, the now suspended men should be held to a higher standard.

It is a point that Goodman does not concede.

“The city should have to prove that the statement on Facebook and the “likes” interfered with the legitimate state interest of Columbus. That’s a very high standard to meet.

“Where’s the harm? If the city can not prove harm, then the regulation is unconstitutional.”

Smith, fire chief Kenneth Moore and police chief Selvain McQueen declined to comment on the matter.

While the Columbus Police Department does not have a policy stating what their officers can and cannot say on social networking sites, The Starkville Police Department has a very clear and defined stance on the matter.

In a memo from police chief David Lindley, Section 221.4.2.3.1. states: “This department reserves the right to access any information contained in EMDs (electronic messaging devices) and may require employees to provide passwords to files that have been encrypted or password protected.”

“Electronic messaging devices include personal computers, electronic mail systems, voice mail systems, paging systems, electronic bulletin boards, Internet services, mobile digital terminals, and facsimile transmissions.”

In a case making headlines in Virginia, a deputy with the Hampton County Sheriff’s Department is appealing his firing to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

In 2009, six employees with the Hampton County Sheriff’s Department “liked” the Facebook page of a man running for election against the current sheriff. When that candidate lost and the sheriff was re-elected, the sheriff fired the six employees.

The men disagreed with the firing and took their case to Virginia’s U.S. District Court saying that the “like” was protected under the First Amendment. A judge ruled against the men, but one of the deputies is appealing the judgment. Both Facebook and the American Civil Liberties Union have come out in support of the deputy, saying they believe “liking” something on Facebook is protected speech.

In the workplace, regulations regarding social media ran from non-existent to extreme. Local industrial giants Paccar and Severstal do not have policies regulating what their employees can and cannot post on social networking sites.

However, in what is becoming an increasingly common question in a job interview, potential employers are asking applicants for the Facebook login information and password. One step further, corporations both large and small are asking employees to “friend” an employee in their human resources department so their page can be monitored.

Depending on their employer’s policy, employees can take steps to establish privacy on social networking sites. For example, the Columbus firefighter who posted the controversial update made his page available to anyone who typed his name into the Facebook search engine. With the simple click of a button, any and all of his information could have been hidden only to those on his friends list.

The argument has been made that by identifying himself as a Columbus firefighter on his page, he represented the department, regardless of if he was on duty or not.

The Air Force argues the same point. The AFI 35-113, Internal Information, Section 15 defines rules for social media stating: “In general, the Air Force views personal websites and weblogs positively, and it respects the right of airmen to use them as a medium of self-expression. However, as members of the Air Force, airmen must abide by certain restrictions to ensure good order and discipline. All airmen are on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and their actions on and off duty are subject to the Uniform Code of military Justice.”

While some companies and government entities are creating polices to govern social media, the Mississippi Department of Education has a Code of Ethics stating who teachers can and cannot be Facebook “friends” with.

Standard Four of the Code of Ethics states that “invitation to social networking” such as “friending” a student on Facebook is clearly inappropriate. Teachers with the Columbus Municipal School District were required to a sign the Code of Ethics for the first time in the 2011-2012 school year.

The suspended firefighters and police officer can appeal the mayor and council’s decision and take their case to the Civil Service Commission. Should they decide to pursue legal action, they would be joining the ranks of the deputies in Virginia who are proving to be trailblazers in establishing how much reign employees have on their employees social networking.

Sarah Fowler covered crime, education and community related events for The Dispatch.

READER FAVORITES

• 

  Justices upholds aggravated assault, attempted robbery conviction

  By Cadence Harvey • 1 day ago

• 

  Historic Preservation: West Point’s historic Northside School poised for new future

  By Braden Simmons • 1 day ago