Talk with the Experts: The Legalities of Social Media – Transcript

Share this article

In the interests of full disclosure, I am going to start this post off with an admission. I orchestrated today’s Talk with the Experts online chat session mainly for my own selfish enjoyment. Our expert was Leanne O’Donnell, senior lawyer at digital agency ntegrity and the topic was The Legalities of Social Media. The hour flew by and we covered a great deal – everything from protecting children on the internet to ‘libel tourism’ (yup, that’s a thing!).

A lot of useful resources came out of the hour. If you’re interested in those but can’t be bothered filtering through the entire transcript, you’re in luck. Here is a list of links that I have compiled:

Some tech and media lawyers to follow:
@VBalasubramani on Twitter
@journlaw on Twitter
@mslods on Twitter
Prof Mark Pearson’s blog
Eric Goldman’s blog
Leanne blogging for ntegrity
If you want to follow Leanne:
@mslods on Twitter
Leanne O’Donnell on LinkedIn
Leanne’s blog
Resources relating to copyright and image use:
The DisCo Project have blog posts relating to fair use of imagery.
The Definitive Guide to Mostly Free Images
Personal Photo Sharing – Things to Think About
Some miscellaneous resources:
An article about the California law that allows kids to use an “online eraser”.
The Australian Social Advertising Best Practices Guideline
Companies and social media. The message from the regulators.
Slideshow: Social Media and the Law
#iitrial — Australia’s first twitter hashtag to go from trial to the High Court?
Dell’s Global Social Media Policy

If you missed the session today because you didn’t know about it, make sure you sign up for email notifications of future sessions here. Next week we’ll be talking through the intricacies of buying and selling websites with Luke McCormack from Flippa. That will kick off at 3:00pm PDT on Thur 3 Oct.

And for those of you that want to know exactly what went down this morning, here is the full transcript for your enjoyment:

[21:26] <HAWK> So we may as well kick things off and people can jump in as they arrive. If you are new to these sessions, you can @ tag people to get their attention.
[21:27] <HAWK> So Leanne can do a brief intro so you know who she is :)
[21:27] <Leanne> Cool – looking forward to the questions. Interesting how so many of legal issues in social media are the same despite different laws in different countries
[21:27] <HAWK> Ah yes… that was going to be one of my questions ;)
[21:28] <Leanne> I’m a senior lawyer working for a telco. I’ve been actively engaged in social media for quite a few years, well for a lawyer. I first got interested when a case I was working on was the first in Australia to be live-tweeted in court
[21:28] <HAWK> Wow, that would have been interesting.
[21:29] <Leanne> Yes, it meant we had to brief not just traditional journos but bloggers
[21:29] <HAWK> Yeah, right.
[21:29] <HAWK> And they tend to be a little more gung-ho!
[21:29] <Leanne> Was great to see the broader public get an insight into how the court worked through those tweeting from the court room too. The case even had its own # on twitter – #iitrial :)
[21:30] <HAWK> Has it caught on? ie is it common practice now?
[21:30] <Mary> Where can a person go to find out what the laws are around social media – I know about ICAN SPAM
[21:30] <Leanne> Still very much early days in terms of people tweeting from court. Happening more often but more complicated in criminal cases
[21:31] <Leanne> Hi Mary – one way I keep up with laws around social media is through following experts on Twitter who practice in the area.
[21:31] <Leanne> The reality is most laws that apply to newspapers for example also apply to social media – such as defamation or copyright. We are all publishers now
[21:31] <Mary> Who is a good person to follow on Twitter?
[21:32] <Mary> That is so true
[21:32] <Leanne> For those in the US I really enjoy tweets and blog posts from Venkat:
[21:32] <xxxx> “We are all publishers now” Agree.
[21:33] <HAWK> The copyright is one that I wanted to ask about. If someone posts something on a SM channel (I guess I’m thinking photos on Facebook), does anyone have the right to repost it, or are there copyright issues around that?
[21:33] <Leanne> He’s an internet/tech lawyer based in Seattle. He has a great blog with Eric Goldman – Technology & Marketing Law
[21:34] <Leanne> Yes – definitely copyright issues with using images obtained from Facebook. First, there’s restrictions in Facebook’s own terms and conditions.
[21:34] <Mary> Thanks, Leanne. I’m a graduate student in Internet Marketing and I know I will have to be aware of the legal aspects.
[21:34] <Leanne> In the US you may be able to use the image as a ‘fair use’ if it’s not for a commercial purpose and you attribute the source. If you are going to use the image commercially always safest to get permission
[21:35] <HAWK> What about resharing them on Facebook (rather than using elsewhere)?
[21:35] <Leanne> This is the tech & marketing law blog I recommended:
[21:36] <jerry> Is the fair use provision in US copyright law something that is not common elsewhere?
[21:36] <Leanne> Re-sharing them on FB is less risky as could be seen to be an implied license. However, if the image is that of a commercial photographer for example, they still might assert copyright over that photo
[21:36] <HAWK> Ok, thanks
[21:36] <CaptStan> In Facebook you share and the ‘attribute’ is the person who previously posted. Where does the legalities end? Are you assuming they had the right?
[21:37] <Leanne> Hi Jerry – yes, you are very lucky in the US to have a fair use provision in your copyright law as it is much more flexible than the exceptions to copyright in countries such as Australia, Canada and NZ
[21:37] <StephenP> Is there a recommended style or method for doing the photo attribution on a page’s original post of a photo?
[21:37] <Leanne> Hi CaptStan – yep great question. The legalities are a complicated web as you’ve suggested. Yes, you could be sharing something that person didn’t have the rights to share in the first place
[21:38] <HAWK> And in that case, are you also liable?
[21:38] <Leanne> Hi StephenP – yes attribution should be clear but unfortunately it won’t be enough in places like Australia as our laws are much more restrictive
[21:38] <Mary> Yes, but what if your friend posts a picture on the Facebook page without your permission – do you have a legal right to ask them to remove it?
[21:39] <StephenP> Wondering if anyone has a Style Guide re the doing the attribution. So we do it in a consistent way.
[21:39] <jerry> @Mary – isn’t that Facebook policy?
[21:39] <Jen> How about a company posting pictures of happy customers or visitors to their premises – do they need written permission first? Does this change where the customer or visitor is under age?
[21:39] <Mary> @Jerry – I don’t know – I will have to go back and read it.
[21:40] <HAWK> Sensible idea StephenP – I haven’t seen anything like that.
[21:40] <Leanne> Hi Mary – I think your question could be more of a question of FB policy as Jerry suggested. There is a copyright complaint process via Facebook that you can use
[21:40] <StephenP> Jen, great question.
[21:40] <Leanne> If you’re interested in the Australian approach to copyright see an article I wrote a few months ago on the ntegrity blog
[21:41] <Leanne> Hi Jen – that is a good question and again one where the laws are different in Australia than the USA. In Australia, the answer would be you don’t from a legal perspective need that level of consent.
[21:42] <CaptStan> In photography, if the person is identifiable then you need written permission to publish or use, if not then it is allowable. I would think same levels?
[21:42] <Mary> I don’t have the book in front of me but APA – you need to say, taken from and then post the link, and include the date.
[21:42] <Leanne> However in the US there are stronger rights of publicity and privacy and from both a reputation and legal perspective it would certainly be sensible to get consent. Privacy is also a high profile issue at the moment with surveillance debates such as Snowden.
[21:43] <Leanne> In some of these cases, always good to think of companies/brand’s reputation as well as the legal obligations.
[21:43] <Randy> The copyright laws associated with images say that an image only need to be changed by 10% or more to be used for something without the artists permission.
[21:43] <Mary> Where I work if we are to use an employee’s image we need a consent form.
[21:44] <HAWK> Wow. That’s incredible Randy – I didn’t know that.
[21:44] <Leanne> Agree CaptStan – I’d definitely get consent in the US. In Australia we don’t even have a bill of rights so some of these issues are less clear
[21:44] <Mary> Randy, what type of change?
[21:44] <jerry> @Randy – the copyright laws in which jurisdiction? Does cropping off 10% of the original image count as a change?
[21:45] <HAWK> I’m assuming any change.
[21:45] <Leanne> Yes – Randy is talking about transformative use in US copyright law. But it’s actually a complicated issue and the use has to still be “fair”
[21:45] <QwertifiedRedneck> What happens if they explicitly say that they don’t want them altered?
[21:46] <Leanne> So even if change it 10% if the use is not “fair” you could still get sued – such as Shepherd Fairey case about the Obama Hope Posters or Richard Prince or Jeff Koons.
[21:46] <Randy> One of the classic examples was when an apparel company turned Izod’s alligator logo upside down and sold polo shirts that way. Izod sued and lost because the judge said that the image was turned 180 degrees so it was 50% different.
[21:46] <HAWK> If I was to take someone’s image and use it unfairly and they were in the US, would US law apply, or NZ law (because that’s where I am)?
[21:47] <Leanne> Fair use is a really complicated area of law. Recommend checking out the blog posts on this topic from the DisCo Project:
[21:47] <CaptStan> Could you explain those case a little so I understand Leanne.
[21:47] <Randy> I often use photos and run them through filters in photoshop and crop them.
[21:47] <HAWK> And I am about to start doing that now Randy ;)
[21:48] <HAWK> Or I might start posting them all upside down
[21:48] <jerry> @hawk LOL
[21:48] <Leanne> Hi Hawk given the person who is suing is in the US that’s where they would sue you so US law would apply
[21:48] <HAWK> Right
[21:48] <HAWK> Makes sense
[21:48] <Randy> Since the web is international, someone may try to sue you HAWK. It’s hard to say if they’ll win.
[21:48] <HAWK> And how would that work? Would I have to go there to defend myself?
[21:49] <Leanne> Different in defamation. And this is where it gets interesting in social media world. Sometimes people who believe they are being defamed online will choose the country with the laws that suit them to sue.
[21:49] <HAWK> Heh. Right.
[21:49] <CaptStan> So they could choose a country where neither resides?
[21:50] <Leanne> For example there was a NZ cricket player Chris Cairns who sued an Indian cricket official in courts in England about comments that he said were defamatory on Twitter. And yes, this case all had to go to London for the court case
[21:50] <Randy> I used a photo that I had seen of a bird on several sites. I got an email from the photographer saying it was copyrighted and she was suing me for $2500. I took the photo off the site, told her I did so, and never heard back from her again.
[21:51] <Leanne> Yep Capstan – it’s called forum shopping or libel tourism and many use courts in England to bring defamation cases. Compared to US less free speech protections so much harder for defendants trying to defend a claim of defamation
[21:51] <Jen> @CaptStan yes – I was thinking from a subject/ model perspective in photography best practise, however FB photos are also relevant to ‘news’ rules which are less restrictive.
[21:51] <Jen> Agree @Leanne for a commercial organisation I guess brand, reputation and relationship over legality are the most important :)
[21:52] <Randy> You have to remember that attorneys are out to make a buck, so they’ll sue for anything that is in their jurisdiction.
[21:52] <HAWK> I have a question for you Leanne. It will change the subject, so if anyone else has other copyright questions, jump in first.
[21:52] <Leanne> Hi Randy – yes the law firm I used to work for did a lot of that work for Getty Images and there’d be junior lawyers regularly writing letters seeking payment for photos used without permission
[21:53] <HAWK> So the aim was to get the photos taken down, rather than looking for someone to prosecute?
[21:53] <HAWK> Or is it a financial exercise?
[21:53] <CaptStan> @Jen I was wondering about that difference.
[21:53] <Leanne> Hawk – no the aim was two-fold get $ and photos taken down
[21:53] <HAWK> Right
[21:54] <HAWK> So I wanted to ask a question which relates to forum use. If someone posts something illegal on our forums (for instance links to pirated content) are we legally liable for it?
[21:54] <Leanne> On the copyright topic it’s good to be aware of sites where you can get photos without needing to seek copyright permission – for example using Wikimedia commons or other sources where people have released their photos under creative commons licenses
[21:54] <Randy> HAWK it’s often a financial exercise, but once the image is off the site, they have a hard time proving anything. Even if they take a screen shot of the website with it up, they’d have to prove that you profited by having it up.
[21:55] <QwertifiedRedneck> I asked if copyright holders could specify whether or not people were allowed to alter their images, and if so, would it hold ground in court, or be deemed null due to the 10% rule. Anyone?
[21:55] <HAWK> Thanks Randy
[21:55] <HAWK> We posted an article on SitePoint recently listing some good places to find free imagery. I’ll have a look for a link.
[21:56] <jerry> If someone were to sue me, a US citizen living in the US, in an English court for copyright violation or defamation, what are the consequences if I simply don’t respond, assuming I never plan to travel to England?
[21:56] <Leanne> Hi Hawk – that’s a great question! And it’s related to the court case that I spent 3 years and 3 court hearings on. iiNet a telco in Australia was sued by a bunch of Hollywood studios. The movie studios said iiNet should be responsible for when their customers download movies infringing copyright by using P2P such as bittorrent. Our court said no.
[21:56] <Leanne> iiNet was not responsible as they didn’t have the direct power to prevent this.
[21:56] <HAWK> I’m queuing questions for Leanne, so if you don’t get an answer straight away, don’t stress – she’ll get to you. :)
[21:57] <Randy> Redneck – it’s really a matter of adding or taking away value from the “artistic” property of someone else. I know that sounds a bit ambiguous – but isn’t that what law is all about? ;)
[21:57] <CaptStan> As far as lawyers are concerned. :-D
[21:58] <Leanne> In the US – there is legal protection for intermediaries such as a forum for being held responsible for others illegal acts. But it’s tricky as there is a need to juggle free speech and the copyright issues. It could also depend on the community guidelines of the forum. So as a forum manager you may choose to take down the content as breaching your
[21:58] <Leanne> forum’s guidelines.
[21:58] <Leanne> There is also a need for those managing forums not to be seen to be encouraging others illegal acts – in legal terms they could be vicariously liable
[21:59] <HAWK> Yeah, we do take it down in most cases. But there are others that are grey areas. LIke when someone starts a thread saying “Don’t use X company, they will rip you off. This is what they did to me…”
[21:59] <CaptStan> Does you run a risk of free spech when you take someone’s comments down?
[21:59] <HAWK> X company will get in touch with me and ask to have it taken down and threaten legal action. I won’t take those ones down because I believe it is important for people to hear that stuff (within reason) and encourage them to log in and refute the claims and air their side.
[21:59] <Randy> I manage a Facebook page for the state of Utah, and we have a note on the page that says we will remove offensive comments. A forum can do the same.
[22:00] <Mary> Should you have a Rules of Engagement that people acknowledge when they join the forum?
[22:00] <Leanne> Hawk – yes, that’s a challenging issue as CaptStan there’s free speech provisions in Australia, there’s a reputation issue that people will say your censoring and there’s a legal risk that the company that is being ‘bagged’ could say you also defamed them
[22:00] <HAWK> We have all sorts of rules like that, but I encourage my staff to exercise discretion (or send it through to me)
[22:00] <jerry> CaptStan in the US the concept of the free speech protection in the Constitution is misunderstood by many. It applies only to restriction imposed by the government, not (for the most part) by individuals or businesses
[22:00] <HAWK> Yes Mary – but you can’t cover ALL the possibilities. We don’t allow personal insults etc, but we do allow people to talk about experiences
[22:01] <Leanne> In some ways it goes back to the point of all of us being publishers. So the forum could be liable just like a newspaper if publishing defamatory comments and this will depend on the laws of the country the person is suing in.
[22:01] <HAWK> So the forum COULD be liable for something that someone else posts…?
[22:02] <Mary> well if what there writing could be construed as bullying or ‘hateful’
[22:02] <Randy> I think that too many people are afraid of being sued. I often hear that when someone threatens a lawsuit, the accused often runs away without trying to defend themselves at all. It’s standing up that helps clarify some of these issues .
[22:02] <Leanne> Hawk – yes, there’s definitely a risk. There was a case in Australia recently where Google was liable for it search results that suggested a guy was an underworld criminal
[22:02] <HAWK> So that is where moderation comes in Mary. I let them say their bit, but it can’t cross a line into cruelty or personal insult.
[22:03] <HAWK> Good call Randy. I tend to stand my ground and the person making the threats disappears.
[22:03] <Leanne> Another person I recommend following for detail on these issues (apart from me of course :)) is @journlaw – he’s on Twitter and has a blog and had written a book:
[22:04] <jerry> Leanne What reasoning did the court use to hold Google responsible for search results? There is no reasonable way they can control what is on the Internet
[22:04] <HAWK> Along the same lines, I often get contacted by people asking me to remove links that THEY posted on the forums and can no longer edit out. I refuse (the internet is forever and people need to learn that). I was recently threatened with a ‘disavow order’. What is that?
[22:04] <Leanne> Randy – yes, the reality is it takes a lot of time and resources to sue, so often people won’t go with threats. But sometimes a threat to sue can still be damaging to a brand’s reputation. Really is a juggling exercise!
[22:04] <jerry> At least a forum moderator can remove content
[22:05] <HAWK> FYI Leanne is
[22:05] <Leanne> Interesting Hawk – I’ve heard of takedown or DMCA orders but not disavow, must be a US thing. Have you seen the news about the law in California that will allow kids to ask for comments to be deleted?
[22:06] <HAWK> No, I haven’t. Sounds interesting…
[22:06] <HAWK> To be fair, I should have said that I don’t always refuse. It depends on the circumstances.
[22:06] <HAWK> I believe that children should always be protected. But not people purporting to be ‘experts’ in a field that then freak out that their clients will see them asking for help in a beginner’s forum on their expert subject ;)
[22:07] <Leanne> Here’s an article on that new law – talks about some of the issues we’ve been discussing:
[22:07] <HAWK> Great, thanks very much.
[22:07] <HAWK> Here is that article about free imagery that I mentioned earlier
[22:08] <Leanne> Another interesting social media issue in Australia at the moment is around employer’s dismissing employee’s for what they say online
[22:08] <Jen> @Leanne what happened?
[22:08] <HAWK> I see that a law was passed somewhere in the US recently barring employers from asking for employee’s Facebook logins
[22:09] <HAWK> I can’t believe that that was even necessary. Stunning.
[22:09] <Randy> I find that if you can identify the owner of an image & email them, they will often give permission with no expense, unless they’re like Getty and in the business of selling images. Most just want a byline and a link to their site.
[22:09] <Leanne> We had a public servant he was dismissed for tweets disagreeing with the policy of the govt department she worked for. Interesting she was found to breach the workplace policy even though she was tweeting anonymously
[22:09] <HAWK> I wonder if she would have been dismissed for saying the same things at a party?
[22:09] <Jen> @Leanne wow pretty interesting – she was tweeting anonymously so how did they find out it was her account?
[22:10] <Leanne> Hawk – yes I did read about that. Really shows that our personal and professional lives are getting very blurred!
[22:10] <Randy> I’ve heard that for the past several years here in the US, and I can’t believe applicants actually give that info.
[22:10] <CaptStan> Leanne, could you take about the cases you mentioned before as the nuances could help.
[22:10] <HAWK> Yeah. Would they hand over their phones so that their employer could read their texts?
[22:10] <Leanne> The CEO of the company I work for follows me on Twitter so that’s a good incentive to be relatively sensible :)
[22:10] <HAWK> Which cases are you referring to CaptStan?
[22:10] <pahlearns> Hello everyone and sorry if this has been covered but my question is about images, specifically photos I have taken and use for my business. How do I keep others from copying from FB and using my images. Does FB provide something I can use for protection or is there something I should be using before placing my images on FB
[22:11] <CaptStan> That was ‘talk’ can’t type!!!!
[22:11] <CaptStan> The cases she previously mentioned in the thread.
[22:11] <HAWK> I’ll queue your question for Leanne pahlearns :)
[22:11] <Leanne> Capstan – most happy for you to ask me any specific questions later on Twitter too @MsLods and then I can direct you to some articles/commentary which will give more detail than I can here
[22:11] <CaptStan> Thanks.
[22:11] <HAWK> That might make more sense
[22:12] <Randy> Most companies in the US have “social media” policies. It’s best just not to talk about work on FB and Twitter.
[22:12] <Randy> There’s usually someone that you’re friends with from work that you really can’t trust!
[22:13] <Leanne> I pahlearns – that’s probably a question for a tech person but I’ve definitely seen people include the C symbol as a watermark
[22:13] <HAWK> Agreed Randy – it comes back to the internet being forever. We used to talk about not saying something that you wouldn’t want published in a newspaper.
[22:14] <HAWK> pahlearns You could ask your question here for expert support!
[22:14] <Leanne> Randy – I’ve recently worked on my employer’s social media policy. Given it’s a telco company selling internet/mobile products we encourage our staff to be active on social media but also use their common sense if talking about work issues.
[22:14] <Leanne> Recommend Dell’s social media policy as one that balances managing the risk for employer’s and being sensible for employees.
[22:15] <Randy> Clear back before the turn of the century (I love to say that now!) I read an article about people expecting privacy on the internet. The only people that really expect privacy are people in big cities. Small town people know that everyone already knows everything about you. lol
[22:15] <HAWK> Love it Randy
[22:15] <HAWK> Leanne – are there laws relating to disclosure of paid tweets/posts etc? Ie are people obliged to disclose that something is an ad?
[22:15] <Leanne> For Dell’s policy and approach check out:
[22:15] <pahlearns> Ok thanks Hawk and Leanne for your help.
[22:16] <HAWK> No probs :)
[22:16] <Leanne> Hi Hawk – again this question depends on your country. In NZ there is a body that regulates advertising has set out guidelines in which companies have to disclose paid/sponsored tweets and blog posts etc.
[22:17] <HAWK> And who does that law apply to? I work for an Australian company (and tweet for them) but I am in NZ
[22:17] <HAWK> And our audience are international
[22:17] <Leanne> As a general rule, companies in their communications can’t mislead and deceive the public. It’s also a reputational issue – if people are going to feel they have been tricked then they might not trust your brand if it comes out that the tweet was an advertisement
[22:18] <HAWK> Totally agree from a moral standpoint. We have a policy inhouse of always using *ad
[22:18] <Leanne> Hawk – in your case, the safest approach is to disclose. In Australia the Interactive Advertising Bureau has recently issued guidelines on this issue of disclosing paid advertising on social media.
[22:18] <Mary> so true, I work in Brand Communication.
[22:19] <Randy> I think the main thing to remember is that everything we do crosses country boundaries now
[22:19] <Mary> Yes and travels quickly
[22:19] <HAWK> I should state (for the sake of the transcript) that we have a clear disclosure policy when it comes to promoted content.
[22:19] <Leanne> Hawk – here’s the Australian guidelines:
[22:19] <HAWK> Thanks
[22:20] <Leanne> Similarly at my workplace – if you are speaking about the company you need to disclose this.
[22:20] <HAWK> So, we have about 10 more minutes in the session. Does anyone feel that their question has been missed? If you have another one, jump in now.
[22:21] <Leanne> Agree these things can really spread quickly – world of mouth rather than word of mouth
[22:21] <Randy> Well, I’m jumping off. thank you all for the info
[22:21] <Leanne> Hawk – also most happy for people to ask questions later via Twitter or LinkedIn too. There’s a list of articles I’ve written on social media topics on my LinkedIn profile
[22:21] <Jen> Anyone want to share their Social Media policy for staff?
[22:21] <HAWK> Thanks for joining us Randy
[22:22] <Leanne>
[22:22] <Leanne> Thanks Randy
[22:22] <HAWK> That’s brilliant, thanks Leanne
[22:23] <Leanne> Jen – I looked at the Dell social media policy when drafting a social media policy recently – I like their approach
[22:24] <Jen> @Hawk thanks – I guess I jumped back to the recent Australian law suit I am keen to look at social media policy for staff
[22:25] <Jen> @Leanne do you have a link for Dell social media policy?
[22:25] <Leanne> Hawk – going back to my original story about tweeting from court, you might be interested in this short piece I wrote on that experience:
[22:25] <HAWK> Very interested. Thanks!
[22:25] <pahlearns> So are you saying that for the common person tweeting you should not quote Ad text or slogans without some how specitying “Ad-content”. Or who does this apply to.
[22:25] <HAWK> FYI everyone, when I post the transcript later I’ll compile all these resources into a list
[22:26] <Leanne> Hi Jen – here’s the link to Dell’s policy:
[22:26] <CaptStan> Thanks a lot everyone!
[22:26] <Jen> @Leanne thanks :)
[22:26] <Leanne> Thanks CapStan too, enjoyed the exchanges!
[22:26] <HAWK> No, that’s not what I meant pahlearns – I was specifically referring to people tweeting on behalf of companies or brands. If you are paid to make a tweet, you should disclose that.
[22:26] <HAWK> See ya CaptStan
[22:27] <pahlearns> Ok thanks
[22:27] <Leanne> Hawk – on Twitter you’ll see some posts from Australian companies such as MamaMia ending in sp to show it was a sponsored post
[22:28] <HAWK> Right. We thought hard about how to signify it. sp is confusing for us because the company is SitePoint. I like *ad.
[22:28] <HAWK> Makes it really clear
[22:28] <Leanne> Hawk – for a resource on internet law in NZ I’d recommend following Rick Shera @lawgeeknz on Twitter
[22:28] <HAWK> Brilliant, will do.
[22:28] <Leanne> Hawk – that makes sense in your case and *ad is what the NZ advertising regulatory has recommended
[22:29] <HAWK> Huh, wow. I didn’t know that!
[22:29] <HAWK> Maybe they follow us ;)
[22:29] <HAWK> This has been an awesome session, which I concede to hijacking for my own selfish purposes. ;) Does anyone have any last pressing questions before I let Leanne get on with her day?
[22:29] <Mary> It has been great, thanks for having it.
[22:30] <Leanne> And for my own plug – feel free to follow my blog
[22:30] <Jen> If an employee uses social media in their own time and does not disclose their work role are they free to express their views freely?
[22:30] <Leanne> I do a weekly round-up of law + tech news and it covers news and views on many of the topics we’ve discussed today
[22:30] <pahlearns> thanks for your time everyone
[22:30] <HAWK> Do you mean their views about their job or workplace Jen? Or just their own views on life etc?
[22:31] <Leanne> Hi Jen – if you are a public servant in Australia the federal govt’s policy would restrict you on speaking about online if your views criticise the area you work in
[22:31] <Jen> @hawk either or
[22:31] <Jen> @Leanne so that was specific to the govt policy then?
[22:32] <Leanne> Jen – there’s also the reality that company’s employee conduct policies apply outside the workplace. So there’s been a case in Australia – Linfox v Stutsel where a guy was dismissed because of racist/sexist comments on his FB page which he thought were private but people from his workplace saw them
[22:32] <Leanne> In govt the policies are stricter but some workplaces also have very strict policies. So not an easy answer to this question.
[22:33] <Jen> @Leanne OK, it’s a complex area – Dell link is a great starting point then thanks :)
[22:33] <Jen> Thanks for your help
[22:33] <pahlearns> Thats FB a publicly private forum for the 2013s
[22:33] <HAWK> I think you probably have to gauge it for yourself, based on whether you’d say the same things out loud in the cafeteria.
[22:34] <Leanne> And yes as pahlearns is suggesting what really is private online?
[22:34] <HAWK> Heh.
[22:34] <HAWK> Well everyone, I think that’s a wrap.
[22:34] <HAWK> I want to say a huge thanks to Leanne for her time (and knowledge) this morning
[22:35] <Leanne> Pleasure Hawk – I’ll just post a few more articles that you can add to the resources list:–Monitor-by-Leanne-O’Donnell&ID=39810&Type=F&TopicIDNews=7
[22:35] <HAWK> Is there no end to your brilliance?
[22:36] <HAWK> :D
[22:36] <Leanne>
[22:36] <Leanne> Happy to chat. Really interesting issues and great to learn from each other too!
[22:36] <HAWK> Agreed.
[22:36] <HAWK> Thanks again. Have a great day.

Sarah HawkSarah Hawk
View Author

Formerly a developer in the corporate world, HAWK (known as Sarah by her mother) said goodbye to the code and succumbed to the lure of social media to become the Community Manager for the SitePoint network. Now Hawk is working with Discourse to build their product and community.

social mediatalk with the experts
Share this article
Read Next
Get the freshest news and resources for developers, designers and digital creators in your inbox each week