You would think that the Internet and Intellectual Freedom would go together like peanut butter and jelly and you would be both right and wrong. The Global Network Initiative (GNI) was formed to protect and advance the freedom of expression but only three of major Internet players have signed up (Google, Yahoo and Microsoft). Those standing in the wings are Facebook, Twitter and pretty much every other Internet social media start up. The GNI was started in 2008 after a human rights organization brought attention to some of the practices of these companies. Yahoo in the past has released information to the Chinese government that resulted in the imprisonment of dissidents. Google and Microsoft have both limited search results to meet China censoring laws although Google has since changed this practice.
Facebook exercised its censorship muscles by removing pages and content that it thought was inappropriate. Facebook removed a picture of two men kissing. The follow letter was sent.
“Hello,
Content that you shared on Facebook has been removed because it violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Shares that contain nudity, or any kind of graphic or sexually suggestive content, are not permitted on Facebook.
This message serves as a warning. Additional violations may result in the termination of your account. Please read the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities carefully and refrain from posting abusive material in the future. Thanks in advance for your understanding and cooperation.
The Facebook Team”
The photo was of two fully clothed men kissing is a public setting. It is interesting to note that the photo does not violate their “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” or their “Community Standards” policy yet it was still censored. As a counterpoint, Facebook has been used by groups to organize protests against the Farc in Colombia and Facebook did help President Obama in his political campaign of 2008. So the answer seems to be, if it is in the interest of Facebook it stays and if it is not, it goes.
So, is free speech protected on the Internet? In a recent case, the National Labor Relations Board has stated that an employee is legally protected under the first amendment to post negative comments on Facebook about their employer and that employees have the right to talk about wages and working conditions. They went on to say that not all speech is protected but this finding does show that even though a company has a social media policy that prohibits negative comments, it is not necessary legal to terminate an employee because of those comments.
The social software side of the Internet still seems very much like the wild west with companies like Facebook making up the censorship rules as they go along with little real regard to the First Amendment and Intellectual Freedom. As this technology matures it will be interesting to watch how we as a global society deal with these issues.
Cited Works:
" Facebook Criticized For Censorship." All Facebook - The Unofficial Facebook Blog - Facebook News, Facebook Marketing, Facebook Business, and More!. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May 2011.
"For Employees, Facebook Counts as Free Speech." Social Media News and Web Tips – Mashable – The Social Media Guide. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May 2011.
"Global Network Initiative." Global Network Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May 2011.
HELFT, MIGUEL. "Facebook Wrestles With Free Speech and Civility - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May 2011.
On the issue of free speech and the workplace, while National Labor Relations Board may have stated that an employee is legally protected under the first amendment to post negative comments on Facebook about their employer, you are not protected from being fired in an "at-will" state. You are given the protection of being able to sue the employer for wrongful termination for violating your workplace rights, but to me the question for employees who are wrongly fired but who do not pursue a lawsuit becomes complicated when searching for a new job and trying to explain why you have checked the little box that indicates you've been terminated in the past. It's hard to communicate a complex situation to a potential employer, while also not "bad-mouthing" your past employer.
ReplyDeleteI know that I'm not looking forward to re-entering the library profession for the first time since I was terminated as a library circulation assistant under complicated and confusing circumstances, including the fact that I believe I could have explored a wrongful termination argument but chose to move on with my life.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)
In the case of the “inappropriate photo” I wonder how much Facebook actually looks into that. For example, anyone can deem your photo “inappropriate” just with a click of a mouse. I am curious as to whether Facebook looks at the photos and judges them, or if they take the word of their users. If enough people flag a photo is it automatically removed? If this is the case, the freedom of a user is greatly diminished and falls into the hands of his or her peers.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I had to sign a waiver at my workplace which stated that I would not post anything on Facebook or my personal blog that is negative toward the company or I was subject to discipline. I was unsure whether or not the company could take such a drastic legal measure, but I signed it anyway. How does this co-exist with the National Labor Relations Board?
I was thinking the same thing Stacy...I have a feeling FB gets so many flagged photos, comments, etc. that they don't look that closely into any of them! I actually watched a news story about this recently. Unfortunately, I cannot find the story...it may have been on the Today Show or MSNBC on our XBox...anyway, it told the story of three people who had all been banned from Facebook and how hard it was to get their accounts back in order. The first woman went fishing and caught a decent sized fish which she then put over her naked breasts, snapped a pic, and uploaded to Facebook. (Yeah, I thought Eww! But I wouldn't have flagged the photo because you couldn't see anything except dead fish...blech!) Apparently, someone or many someones did tag the photo and it was removed and when the woman tried corresponding with Facebook about the picture, she got little to no response. The second person was a guy who owned a business and made a page for the business and Facebook didn't care for the way he had set up his account. This part of the story wasn't extremely clear...I'm still unsure as to whether he set up a personal account as a business or whether he actually set up a business page...but he was banned and has not been able to be a part of Facebook since. Again, he was unable to get any real answers or help out of contacting Facebook directly. The other guy had similar problems with setting up a group page but did finally get his page reinstated. His had to do with promoting contests and giving away prizes for those contests on his page...which many libraries do...I know ours does! I kept meaning to look more closely into this and have forgotten!
ReplyDeleteSo, I think that FB and its policies are still evolving but they had better be careful or it could lead to a huge downfall..
I also think it's interesting how many libraries are setting up social media policies now that involve employees. I'm not sure I agree with it actually. I mean, it feels the same as sitting around, chatting with friends, complaining about work. Except that it's forever stored in cyber-space. Our employers have never been able to stop us from making negative comments about them outside the workplace before...why should this be different? When I first started at my library, all I was told was that I couldn't wear a library shirt and go do something crazy basically, like get drunk and moon a bunch of kids! Haha! But I believe they have had the discussion of our personal FB pages. Since I found out about that, I removed the actual name of my library from my FB page and I set up groups with limited viewing for those involved with me at the library, simply as a pre-emptive measure. That being said, I never usually griped about work or anything else like that on FB because I was already friends with many co-workers and even administrators. Not only that, but I've never thought it wise to air certain personal things online anyway... :)
Again, this is a topic that will be interesting to see as it grows and evolves...
Thanks for the fun post!
I heard similar stories about accounts being locked or users being banned from Facebook without being able to respond to the site. As Facebook tries to contend with the numerous fake profiles, they end up removing actual users. For example, when Kate Middletown became a popular name around the time of the wedding, Facebook removed hundreds of profiles of "Kate Middletown." Of course it is a common name and most of those users were actual people who share the same name as the prince's wife.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have a friend by the name of "Legend." Yes, it is his real name. However, Facebook doesn't believe him and in an effort to remove fake users, he was unable to register under his real name. He instead, is known as "Peter" to the Facebook world.
It seems to me that Facebook is on a slippery slope when it comes to intellectual freedom on their website. They need to discover a more reliable and accurate way to fight real inappropriate photos and fake users.