A Social Media Policy

I am bringing the following complaint against Diane Roznowski because of her violation of our chapter’s Phi Alpha Delta bylaws in chapter II, section I and chapter I, section v (specifically regarding American University Social Media Policy Guidelines Article II, Section II). Today after chapter, I asked the graduating seniors in the room we were holding chapter to leave the room so I could discuss senior send-off. I made an announcement stating that I would be in charge of organizing the senior send-off for this semester. As a result, I opened up the floor to questions and suggestions. Melina Hernandez suggested making personal baskets or gifts for seniors in their specific families within the chapter so that there would be a larger sense of families within our chapter. Melina also expressed that she was more than willing to collaborate with me in that aspect of senior send-off, which I happily agreed to. Later on that evening, Diane added me to a group chat on Facebook and suggested we get something for Kate, who is a graduating member of our chapter within the Warren family. She also added Jackie Pelella to the chat, who is no longer a part of the Warren family since she was the Associate of a Partner (Denise Andrade) who disaffiliated from Phi Alpha Delta and American University for personal reasons. As a result, Jackie was officially adopted into the Kennedy family. When she made this clear in the group chat, she also mentioned that she would be contributing to the

In today’s society, it is crucial for employees to understand the significance in the use of social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook. This subject will discuss the primary reasons companies allow the usage of social networking sites in the workplace. It will also explain the positive impact social media usage has in the workplace, such as allowing communication to a broader audience. In addition to the positive usage, this topic will also explore the negative implications usage can cause. Because social media is still relatively new, there are not many laws establishing the proper guidelines for these sites in the workplace. Scholarly articles such as the ‘Workplace impact of social networking” examine the effects of not establishing said policies, an error which results in an unhealthy work environment. Ultimately, employees can positively influence the workplace by using social media if they have the proper guidelines to follow.

This means that private employers and friends could violate things written in the First Amendment which has created many disagreements. I would like to take this time to point out that the public school system and the state or local government systems go together like peanut butter and jelly. They are interconnected with each other, giving the school system the responsibility of giving the students their First Amendment Rights.

A growing hot topic, and cause for concern is the increasing use of social media in the workplace. The landscape for communication has changed, and the line between personal and professional communications has been blurred. How will your employer manage the risks associated with the use of social media and at the same time, gain the benefits that this media form provides? While many employers were initially concerned that employees would use company time and equipment for socializing with friends, they are quickly learning that many social networks can also be used directly for work purposes.

Detroit Board of Education, the court said “the non-union members cannot be required to pay any part of a dues assessment that would cover the union’s political or ideological activity, to which those workers may (and often do) object. Forcing them to do so, ....violate their First Amendment rights.” This precedent applied to non-members of union. In cases like Abood, the court decided that expression and getting into the process of opting-out of union means ‘speech’ under the constitution of first amendment. Friedrichs clearly expressed their speech through involve in the process of opting-out of union, so the precedent supports that public employees’ speech were protected by the first

It was established that “a state cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes the employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of expression.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142 (1983). Two inquiries guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the employee spoke as a citizen, the second requires determining whether the government’s interest overweighs employee’s interest. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). The First Amendment only protects a government employee’s speech made not pursuant to the employee's official duties upon matters of public concern. Id. In the present case, Mr. Jackson and Middleton High School had stipulated that Mr. Jackson’s speech on relationship between U.S and Cuba included a matter of public concern. Accordingly, Mr. Jackson has to prove that his statement was made as a citizen instead of a teacher. Since Mr. Jackson voluntarily gave the speech outside of Middleton High School to non-captive audiences, Mr. Jackson spoke as citizen and his speech should be protected by the First Amendment.

Dawn,That’s because while the First Amendment protects some kinds of speech (that is, you can say or do it), there’s no requirement that other people for instance; (such as employers organizations have to associate with you once you do. ones can be fired, lose a professional license, or face a range of litigation for doing or saying things that, while they may be protected speech, violate other laws or

The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech..." The Supreme Court determined that free speech does in fact have limits. For years the first amendment only applied to the federal government, that was later changed in 1925 in the 'Gitlow v. New York' court case. The Supreme Court said that this applied to other levels of government which included public schools. 44 years later in 'Tinker v. Des Moines' The Supreme Court ruled that if a student "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others" that the First Amendment does not protect it. Then in 2007 in the 'Morse v. Frederick' case, the

The regulations on social media policies limit the employer’s ability to place restrictions on the staff

Allowing the government to eliminate private speech using the defense of protecting its image, brand, or desired message the government can apply this defense in an overwhelming plethora of situations2. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum set the standard for the government speech doctrine low by not requiring the state to prove it was trying to convey a specific massage before denying the right to freedom of speech to citizens2. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum with the addition of Walker v. Texas will likely result in the assertion of the government speech doctrine in a wider variety of situations as a platform for censoring and denying private speech. Papandrea warns about speech restrictions that will soon be forced on college athletes, public school teachers, and government employees due to the analysis of Walker v.

1. Communication Law is primarily about the First Amendment. What different types of speech can you identify that may have different protection under the first amendment?

This comment addresses occupational licensing laws and discusses when the licensing law goes too far. Regarding the most prominent cases on this issue, Kagan v. City of New Orleans and Edwards v. District of Columbia, this comment discusses the importance of narrowly tailored regulation laws in order to protect citizens from speech prohibition. Part I will analyze how occupational licenses can infringe on the freedom of

The purpose of this literary review is to enlighten my viewers of the importance of the ethical idea of companies crossing the lines of business with your personal life, when involving social media accounts. Most of my research has operated from the ATU library using the find it tool. Furthermost, the researched information use was from peer-reviewed research journal. I will discuss includes social media cons in the work environment, if it is ethical to get fired over a post, and laws that protect both parties. Social media includes an assortment of electronic communications—most commonly networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Pinterest, Instagram, and the likes thereof. Social media also covers all forms of blogs, including Twitter (a micro-blog), wikis, online journals, diaries, personal newsletters, and World of Warfare and YouTube also are included under the umbrella term of social media (Lieber 2011).

The most recent definition of public relations, according to the Public Relations Society of America (2012), states that “Public Relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.” Through the rapid advancement of modern media and technology, there have never been more outlets and opportunities available for accomplishing the goals of public relations. Believing the development of social media has not created serious changes in the way public relations practitioners go about their duties would be foolish and a fast track to falling behind in this rapid world of communication. The main goals of public relations are “to

Social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook have created a new ethical dilemma for many businesses. Corporations, small businesses, and even universities are struggling create policies to manage their employees social networking behaviors. Social networking access, particularly for recruiters, can provide personal information about potential employees, which would otherwise not be available. A business must follow statutes and guidelines when disclosing information to the public. Individuals on social networking sites have no such constraints. Employees can and do make comments about their employers online. Employers can and do watch what employees post online. Any individual can send or post potentially damaging information