Should a workplace have the right to fire employees or pass them over when considering promotions based on their social media usage? Should a business make a practice of suing professionals for libel? These are questions raised by a recent New York Times article “Even if It Enrages Your Boss, Social Net Speech Is Protected” and another article in The Chronicle of Higher Education entitled “Librarians Rally behind Blogger Sued by Publisher over Critical Comments.”
The latter article describes the case of Dale Askey, a librarian at McMaster University, who in a blog in 2010, described Edwin Mellen Press (EMP) as “dubious” and many of its publications as examples of “second-class scholarship” (New, 2013). A sympathetic commentator on Askey’s site then went on to call Herbert Richardson, the founder of EMP, a “’fascist and evangelical Scientologist’” (New, 2013). Richardson, in his claim, ascribes the commentator’s words to Askey: the Internet Archives, however, disprove that claim (New, 2013). According to a CBC article, Richardson also says that Askey’s posting “badly hurt our business….[and] the reputation of our authors” (Ruf, 2013). Askey is now being sued by the publisher (which is also suing McMaster) and by Richardson.
By the way, if you wish to read the blog entry that has led to these lawsuits, you will find a copy in the action notice served by EMP. The original blog has been removed from the web.
The joys of blogging
Fortunately, many in the academic community have rushed to Askey’s aid, including York University Faculty Association’s library chapter, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), the Canadian Association of Professional Academic Libraries (CAPAL), the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and its Canadian counterpart CARL. In addition, Askey supporters can sign a petition started by Martha Reineke, a University of Northern Iowa professor.
While I do support Askey’s right (and duty) to critique publishers, I think his case raises , among other questions, the question of how information professionals should critique publishers, works, vendors, and the like in their blogs and other social media platforms. As the CAPAL site recommends, reading the HLWIKI entry on “Blogging and the Law” is an excellent place to begin this question. I took their advice and found that the following points stood out for me in this entry:
- Bloggers are starting to face more lawsuits or SLAPPS (strategic lawsuits against public participation).
- Bloggers should know that what they consider to be mere opinions are no longer protected from charges of libel although the “fair reports privilege” (i.e. a “well-informed opinion” or the “truth”) serve as a strong defense against such charges.
- Bloggers have a “duty of care” to moderate comments in order to prevent libel.
Askey will be able to defend himself successfully if the fair reports privilege holds for him, but he might fall short on the third point.
A blog posting in Percolator entitled “How Rude! Reader Comments May Undermine Scientists’ Authority” highlights the third point. It describes how a recent study (presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science and soon to be published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication) demonstrates that rude reader comments result in more people feeling negatively about a given topic. In this instance, the topic was the risks of nanotechnology: after reading the article, a greater percentage of those who then read rudely expressed comments (as opposed to those who read only politely worded comments) thought that nanotechnology posed high risks (Basken, 2013). So, moderating comments may serve purposes other than lawsuit prevention.
And while I have focused thus far primarily on academia, social media usage is a topic of hot debate in the broader business world as well. In his NY Times article , Greenhouse (2013) draws attention to several cases of perceived inappropriate social media use in the US which have led to employee termination. Of course, what is “inappropriate” is currently being determined by policy makers and the National Labor Relations Board (Greenhouse, 2013). The legal system has yet to catch up with technological changes, but labour lawyer Denise Keyser advises policy makers to write clear and “specific” policies (Greenhouse, 2013).
In the meantime, social media users and information professional especially (we have an example to set, don’t we?) will need to exercise ever greater levels of restraint in media forms that make impulsive behaviour all too easy.
References:
Blogging and the law. (n.d.) In HLWIKI Canada. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Blogging_and_the_law
Basken, P. (2013, February 14). How rude! Reader comments may undermine scientists’ authority [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/how-rude-reader-comments-may-undermine-scientists-authority/32071
Greenhouse, S. (2013, January 21). Even if it enrages your boss, social net speech is protected. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/technology/employers-social-media-policies-come-under-regulatory-scrutiny.html?pagewanted=all
New, J. (2013, February 14). Librarians rally behind blogger sued by publisher over critical comments. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Librarians-Rally-Behind/137329/
Ruf, C. (2013, February 14). Book publisher sues McMaster librarian, university for libel. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/02/12/hamilton-librarian-lawsuit.html
3 responses to “Social Media Use in the Workplace: The Conundrums of Free Speech”