Dover City Proposal affecting Employee speech defeated.

Filed in National by on September 13, 2011

A Dover city committee rejected a proposal that would prohibit city employees from making any negative comments about individuals or groups based on race, gender or other legally protected characteristics on social media websites, blogs or other online forums, including Facebook, Twitter and other online social media networks, no matter if they were on or off duty. The proposal would have also banned disparaging comments about co-workers, superiors or members of the public they may interact with in the course of their jobs.

Now, I would love to ban racist or discriminatory statements from the public square. Hell, I would love to ban racist or discriminatory thoughts and opinions. For I view such statements and opinions as pure evil, revealing the immoral character and the rotten soul fo the person speaking or thinking them.

But I can’t do that. It would be unconstitutional. It would definitely infringe on the worker’s First Amendment right to free speech. The city can regulate the employee’s statements in the workplace, but not outside it.

Now, the truly horrible consequence of this is that David Anderson and I are on the same side of the issue. Remember, Mr. Anderson is a Dover City Councilman now. I will wait until you finish screaming. Ready? Good. Here are his comments on the matter:

Councilman David Anderson said the language was a serious overextension of the city’s power.
“It goes far beyond existing policies,” he said. “It treats free speech as an action. My thoughts are not regulated.”

About the Author ()

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Republican David says:
    September 13, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Hey, a stopped clock is right twice a day. I can’t tell you which one of is the stopped clock, but we are both right on this one. 🙂

  2. Jason330 says:
    September 13, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Mr. Closet stated that he wants Dover employees to be free to tweet about such pressing issues as “the ground zero mosque” and “gay marriage.”

  3. Republican David says:
    September 13, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Absolutely, among other issues it is interesting the list was from the left and right but you only choose two issues. It is vital that public debate not be relegated to the anonymous but that free people can discuss issues openly.

  4. Jason330 says:
    September 13, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Closet, I chose the two issues you mentioned to the reporter. The two most pressing issues EVER!

  5. Republican David says:
    September 13, 2011 at 11:44 am

    That is true. I reviewed the original article and you are correct. For your convenience here is my original letter to the City manager, HR director, the committee, and council.

    Friends:

    I have a couple of concerns about the proposed social media policy. I was going to save them for early next week when I concluded my research, but Doug from the WNJ called me today for comments. I would rather you not read my concerns for the first time in the paper where I have no control over exactly what is quoted.

    If the social media policy applied to work hours and/ government computers, I would have no issue. The fact that it tries to apply beyond that raises the level of scrutiny. I have real freedom of speech concerns in a couple of the sections. What does it mean that a person is prohibited from making negative remarks regarding an individual or group with regard to race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, citizenship, or other protected class. If someone says that tax money should not go for services for illegal immigrants, is that negative? I don’t think so, but some people do based upon citizenship. The city will be adjusting its policies to deal with gay couples to comply with the civil union law. If someone hopes it does not lead to marriage, is that negative? What about someone posting that a city committee is too white or male or female or black? How about someone saying Christians are too old fashion and they should not be opposed in certain public policy areas? I have heard all of those, should any be banned? My point is that we may all find something to agree or disagree with on either side of a debate, but city employees in their own time on private capacity have the right to participate. Freedom of speech is protected in the first amendment not to safeguard what everyone agrees upon, but to safeguard the controversial and even the offensive.

    The city should make it clear that we are not responsible for the activities of city employees on their own time. If a city employee brings work into their private lives, then certain city guidelines should apply. Most of the restrictions in the prohibitions section seem to make sense such as confidential information, in the illegal category, I would add including hate crimes or harassment after illegal drugs and delete the negative comments section.

    Another issue that I have is a blanket ban on social media during work hours. Why should a person not be able to watch YouTube or update her Facebook while on break on his or her smart phone? Even the military does not try to go that far. Such a policy would be unevenly enforced by its nature which could raise questions of discriminatory enforcement. I highly advise that we do not go there. If you want to say city computers fine. Don’t regulate private equipment except when it interferes with the job.

    Personally, I would rather see a best practices approach like these the City of Hampton, and the GSA. The federal government does not try to micromanage after hours or break times, we should not either. It makes us responsible where we were not. In this day of liablity, assuming it upon yourself is not wise.

  6. Jason330 says:
    September 13, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    “That is true. I reviewed the original article and you are correct.”

    Jason330 1 Closet 0

  7. flutecake says:
    September 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    I live in Dover. Mr. Anderson is not my city councilman. I am involved with people looking forward to the next round of elections. That is all.

  8. Jason330 says:
    September 13, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Good to know.

«
»