Policy Analysis: Free Speech and Social Media

Free talking to is guaranteed by the setoff Amendment to the Constitution. The founding fathers believed the license of the citizenry to question and publicly scorn the government to be of much(prenominal) importance, it was their first order of business. Such expression is non absent limits and well-nigh fail to understand what the First Amendment prohibits. The protections for individuals include the language Congress shall counterbalance no law that abridges free language.Certainly case law has provided some examples of open computer address to Include statements that would cause public terror such as oiling fire In a theater, harassing statements, disturbance of anothers peace, and statements In the belongplace that could render a hostile resolve environment (Van Broccoli, 2011). Because the founding fathers left the First Amendment vague, the Congress, through legislation, and the courts through legal decisions have defined certain lecturing as unprotected. Importa nt differences exist between the dustup of a citizen and the speech of an employee.Even more disparity exists between employees who work in private diligence than employees of the government. Technology available wrought social media and the ability to communicate internationally in seconds has created a whole new-sprung(prenominal) arna for employees and employers (Van Broccoli, 2011). Private Employees versus common Employees Substantial differences exist between private employers and governmental employees. Essentially, free speech protections do not extend to employees of private businesses.Although free speech In the workplace Is restricted, laws link up to whistle blower protections and certain protected classes of throng persist. Furthermore, the National Labor Relations Act (ANAL) protects employees from an employer interfering with an employees fertilization regarding work conditions, executive programs, and the organization. These same protections do not apply to g overnment Jobs, such as municipal law of nature departments. It is important to understand that these protections are not founded in the First Amendment, but in statutes, contracts, case law, and policies and procedures (Van Broccoli, 2011).Public employees enjoy some protections related to the First Amendment, however these are limited. Case law has carved reveal a three prong tryout which is continually being applied to new cases before the courts. The three-prong test applies to oral and written communications, photographic depictions, videos, music, and performing arts. The spare-time activity prongs of the test determine whether or not the officeholders speech Is protected by the First Amendment 1. The speech essential touch on a content of public concern 2. The speech must be made as a citizen, not as part of the officers decreed duties 3.The speech must address an issue of public by-line, and the officers interest must outweigh the agencies interest in promoting and maintaining efficient operations (Baker, 2011). Public Concern Typically, the public is not interested in the inner-workings of law agency. Issues surrounding promotions, advancements, or displeasure with the bosses is not a matter of public interest. For example, in Iconic v. Myers an assistant territorial dominion attorney circulated a letter inquiring round employees morale and work conditions.The assistant soil attorney was fired for his communique and the Supreme chat up upheld his termination. In City of San Diego v. Roe a law of nature force officer was claiming to be expressing free speech by masturbating on a website and selling police memorabilia. The officer was ordered to cease and desist, yet he maintained the web-site that had picture San Diego Police Department uniforms. Again, the Supreme butterfly ruled that his speech was of no interest to the public at large (Van Broccoli, 2011).Official Capacity versus Private Citizen This prong of the test is more diff icult to apply. Often police officers believe they are acting as a citizen, when in fact, the opposite is true. Speech related to the officers official duties is not protected. In Cigarette v Caballeros, a deputy district attorney reviewed an affidavit used by police to secure a search warrant. Deputy District Attorney Caballeros found misrepresentations that he brought to his supervisor. The supervisor removed the deputy from the case and the case went forward.Caballeros testified for the defense and was reassigned to another function and denied a promotion. Caballeros claimed his speech was protected and sued. The Supreme Court ruled that although honorable, his speech was the result of his professional responsibilities as a prosecutor and therefore not the speech of a private citizen (Van Broccoli, 2011). Other cases have illustrated this nexus, including a police sergeant in charge of a argotic unit who brought to light wrong doings of his subordinates. Not only was he told to work harmoniously, he was threatened with transfer.When he resigned and sued, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals again reaffirmed his speech was not that of a private citizen, but the product of his employment (Van Broccoli, 2011). Notoriety, such as an officer who is on a regular basis on the news may place that officer in an official capacity more than other officers (Baker, 2011). Promoting and Maintaining Efficiency The Supreme Court has ruled that even if the officers speech was related to an issue of public concern, and the officer was acting as a citizen, the interests of the officer will be weighed against the departments interests.This prong was discussed in Nixon v. City of Houston (Van Broccoli, 2011). Nixon, a Houston Police Officer, authored opinion columns in local publications. Although he never identified himself as a Houston Police officer, he regularly mentioned that he was a police officer and wrote about Houston Police activities and policies as well as his acti vities. His columns contained offensive remarks about minorities, citizen groups, women and the homeless. Although off-duty and not calming to De a Houston Police emcee, en was eventually terminated Tort tans Ana other incidents.Nixon claimed that his speech was protected, yet the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Houston Police Departments interests in protecting their relationship with the community outweighed his interests (Van Broccoli, 2011) . The Policy Because of issues previously discussed, criminal referee agencies have been forced to adopt new policies related to social media. These policies are derived from case law and legislative action and must comply with push back agreements.Because freedom of speech is a Constitutional issue, individual cases will embrace to be determined on their merit within the three-prong test. Police agencies should be encouraged to draft social media policies and educate employees in the nuances of free speech and the acceptable uses of social media. Currently the Washoe County Sheriffs Office does not have a social media policy, although a new policy update is being suppose to address the deficiency (Washoe County Sheriff, 2011). Conclusion The public has pocketable sympathy for police officers who use their trusted role to elate policy.On the other hand, the public has little interest in the daily politics of a police organization. Where police officers fail, and expose their department to embarrassment, are cases in which they post inappropriate materiel for public view. Such examples are widespread and include police officers circular Faceable photographs in uniform pointing guns at their heads, a police officer who fissure a man 11 times then posted comments about how he would rather be emptying his guns than cleaning them, and a police officer with a bikini-clad girl leaned over his patrol ar (Wilson, 2011).