Friday, August 26, 2011
Judge Stays Facebook Law
Just found out that a Judge has stayed Missouri's "Facebook law" stating that the law acts to chills teachers’ speech. I have not seen the opinion yet but hope to provide analysis as soon as it is released. bit.ly/nCxAN9
Friday, August 19, 2011
Missouri's Social Media Law -- Update
Missouri's Teacher's union has just filed a 1st Am. suit seeking to overturn Missouri's new Facebook Law. A copy of the MSTA petition to invalidate the Mo FB law can be found at bit.ly/pOKavy
The MSTA issued the following statement with respect to their suit seeking to overturn Missouri's FB Law: “Many of our members are concerned about the unintended consequences of this law, including their ability to monitor their own children’s online activities,” said MSTA Legal Counsel, Gail McCray. “It's vague and more importantly, we believe it violates the constitutional rights of educators.”
The MSTA issued the following statement with respect to their suit seeking to overturn Missouri's FB Law: “Many of our members are concerned about the unintended consequences of this law, including their ability to monitor their own children’s online activities,” said MSTA Legal Counsel, Gail McCray. “It's vague and more importantly, we believe it violates the constitutional rights of educators.”
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Social Media Law: Who should be drafting your State's laws, (or your Company's policy)?
As social media begins to enter its adolescence it is not surprising that we are beginning to see legislation specifically directed at interaction on social media, the platforms themselves, and their rapidly expanding use in many varying areas of our life. One of those laws which has engendered a wide range of debate is Missouri Senate Bill No. 54 which was unanimously approved by the Senate on April 7, and recently signed into law by Governor Nixon. The legislation will go into effect August 28.
I've deliberately held off writing about Missouri's new law until now because I was curious to see what the initial reaction would be. Not unexpectedly (although I expect some in the Missouri legislature did not foresee this amount of uproar over what they thought was a child protection bill) this law has proven to be controversial. While I have not spoken to the bill's author, Sen. Jane Cunningham, I have little doubt that her efforts in passing the "Amy Hestir Studen Protection Act" were well meaning. Sen. Cunningham's website touts that she has "fought for this legislation for our children for five years" and that "this legislation is vital to protect our children from sexual predators in our schools" While one could debate whether the law actually serves to accomplish its stated goal(over 75% of child abuse actually occurs at home, not by educators)(2009 Childwelfare Public Fact Sheet ), or whether it potentially stifles the learning environment, I believe Sen. Cunningham's well meaning attempt to protect children may provide a glimpse of the challenges that the future regulation of social media will face.
Initially, it should be stated that the legislative process (and the court system for that matter) is somewhat ill-equipped to handle the rapidly changing world of social media. As Sen. Cunningham's statement indicates, she had been working on this legislation for over five years. At that time, Facebook had been open to the general public for less than a year and Twitter had only recently launched. When she initially envisioned the legislation, Sen. Cunningham could not have hoped to foresee the cultural impact that these services would have. Laws that attempt to address social media should keep this reality in mind.
In considering the ramifications of Missouri's law, it is helpful to consider the bill itself. The applicable text of Senate Bill 54 is relatively short and reads as follows:
1. Every school district shall, by January 1, 2012, promulgate a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communication. Such policy shall contain at least the following elements:
(1) Appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with or included in any policy on sexual harassment; and
(2) Appropriate use of electronic media such as text messaging and internet sites for both instructional and personal purposes, with an element concerning use of social networking sites no less stringent than the provisions of subsections 2, 3, and 4 of this section.
I've deliberately held off writing about Missouri's new law until now because I was curious to see what the initial reaction would be. Not unexpectedly (although I expect some in the Missouri legislature did not foresee this amount of uproar over what they thought was a child protection bill) this law has proven to be controversial. While I have not spoken to the bill's author, Sen. Jane Cunningham, I have little doubt that her efforts in passing the "Amy Hestir Studen Protection Act" were well meaning. Sen. Cunningham's website touts that she has "fought for this legislation for our children for five years" and that "this legislation is vital to protect our children from sexual predators in our schools" While one could debate whether the law actually serves to accomplish its stated goal(over 75% of child abuse actually occurs at home, not by educators)(2009 Childwelfare Public Fact Sheet ), or whether it potentially stifles the learning environment, I believe Sen. Cunningham's well meaning attempt to protect children may provide a glimpse of the challenges that the future regulation of social media will face.
Initially, it should be stated that the legislative process (and the court system for that matter) is somewhat ill-equipped to handle the rapidly changing world of social media. As Sen. Cunningham's statement indicates, she had been working on this legislation for over five years. At that time, Facebook had been open to the general public for less than a year and Twitter had only recently launched. When she initially envisioned the legislation, Sen. Cunningham could not have hoped to foresee the cultural impact that these services would have. Laws that attempt to address social media should keep this reality in mind.
In considering the ramifications of Missouri's law, it is helpful to consider the bill itself. The applicable text of Senate Bill 54 is relatively short and reads as follows:
1. Every school district shall, by January 1, 2012, promulgate a written policy concerning teacher-student communication and employee-student communication. Such policy shall contain at least the following elements:
(1) Appropriate oral and nonverbal personal communication, which may be combined with or included in any policy on sexual harassment; and
(2) Appropriate use of electronic media such as text messaging and internet sites for both instructional and personal purposes, with an element concerning use of social networking sites no less stringent than the provisions of subsections 2, 3, and 4 of this section.
2. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:
(1) "Exclusive access", the information on the website is available only to the owner (teacher) and user (student) by mutual explicit consent and where third parties have no access to the information on the website absent an explicit consent agreement with the owner (teacher);
RSMo 162.069
While I commend Sen. Cunningham for the bill's recognition that social media policies are an integral part of any organization's social media efforts, I believe that the law should serve as a warning to those of us who practice in the social medial sphere (and also to those who seek to write laws related to social media in the future) that many of our current legislators are not be experienced in social media and may not realize the ultimate ramifications of the laws they propose.
Social media, chat rooms, blogs, and instant messaging are no longer the realm of tech aficionados and teenagers. These channels now provide a means for efficient, and often enhanced, communication to a broad array of individuals and industries. From the mass communicative capabilities of Twitter to the relatively focused "circles" available at Google+, social media has the potential to provide heretofore unknown educational and commercial opportunities. Laws that ban and/or strictly limit the use of social media serve to stifle those opportunities.
While defenders of this law have stated that its intent is not to prohibit the use of Facebook by educators, its seemingly broad, and under defined terms will likely serve to have that effect. By proclaiming that no teacher shall use an internet site unless such sight is available to school administrators and legal guardians, and that no teacher shall use a nonwork related site which allows exclusive access with a student, by its express terms, the law appears to foreclose many social media applications. Almost all sites "allow" exclusive communications, whether by direct message, chat, or other means. Without further clarification, the law as currently written, will likely deter many educators from taking advantage of social media's potentially enormous educational value.
Those who regularly participate in social media understand the benefits that it can provide, some of which we are only now beginning to appreciate. Companies are using social media to interact with their customers through forms of direct marketing and advertising which was previously impossible. Educators (when not stifled by overly restrictive laws) are forming collaborative groups both with other teachers and also with students which allow all to interact in real time in on-line after-class discussions. Customers are able to provide direct feedback, and receive personalized responses. Students have (or had) the opportunity to ask that question (that they were afraid to ask in class) through a medium in which they were more comfortable. When drafting laws, or social media policies, the vast potential of social media should be considered just as thoroughly as any potential pitfalls.
Because these areas are rapidly changing, and because legislators, or those drafting policies for your organization, may not be as familiar with social media, it is vitally important to engage those fluent in the medium when drafting rules that will effect social media. Include members of your marketing, advertising, and public relations staff in your discussions, and be sure to seek out members of your organization that are active, both personally and professionally, on social media. These are the people who will understand the actual ramifications of the policies that your are proposing and may also be able to provide you with more efficient and effective means to accomplish your goals without stifling social media's benefits. If the people who are writing your policies, (or your State's legislation) aren't actively engaged in social media, they may not see the potential benefits that overly restrictive policies can preclude.
Let me know what you think.
Craig Moore
(2) "Former student", any person who was at one time a student at the school at which the teacher is employed and who is eighteen years of age or less and who has not graduated;
(3) "Nonwork-related internet site", any internet website or web page used by a teacher primarily for personal purposes and not for educational purposes;
(4) "Work-related internet site", any internet website or web pages used by a teacher for educational purposes.
3. No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a work-related internet site unless such site is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian.
4. No teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a nonwork-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting a teacher from establishing a nonwork related internet site, provided the site is used in accordance with this section.
5. Every school district shall, by July 1, 2012, include in its teacher and employee training, a component that provides up-to-date and reliable information on identifying signs of sexual abuse in children and danger signals of potentially abusive relationships between children and adults. The training shall emphasize the importance of mandatory reporting of abuse under section 210.115 including the obligation of mandated reporters to report suspected abuse by other mandated reporters, and how to establish an atmosphere of trust so that students feel their school has concerned adults with whom they feel comfortable discussing matters related to abuse.
RSMo 162.069
While I commend Sen. Cunningham for the bill's recognition that social media policies are an integral part of any organization's social media efforts, I believe that the law should serve as a warning to those of us who practice in the social medial sphere (and also to those who seek to write laws related to social media in the future) that many of our current legislators are not be experienced in social media and may not realize the ultimate ramifications of the laws they propose.
Social media, chat rooms, blogs, and instant messaging are no longer the realm of tech aficionados and teenagers. These channels now provide a means for efficient, and often enhanced, communication to a broad array of individuals and industries. From the mass communicative capabilities of Twitter to the relatively focused "circles" available at Google+, social media has the potential to provide heretofore unknown educational and commercial opportunities. Laws that ban and/or strictly limit the use of social media serve to stifle those opportunities.
While defenders of this law have stated that its intent is not to prohibit the use of Facebook by educators, its seemingly broad, and under defined terms will likely serve to have that effect. By proclaiming that no teacher shall use an internet site unless such sight is available to school administrators and legal guardians, and that no teacher shall use a nonwork related site which allows exclusive access with a student, by its express terms, the law appears to foreclose many social media applications. Almost all sites "allow" exclusive communications, whether by direct message, chat, or other means. Without further clarification, the law as currently written, will likely deter many educators from taking advantage of social media's potentially enormous educational value.
Those who regularly participate in social media understand the benefits that it can provide, some of which we are only now beginning to appreciate. Companies are using social media to interact with their customers through forms of direct marketing and advertising which was previously impossible. Educators (when not stifled by overly restrictive laws) are forming collaborative groups both with other teachers and also with students which allow all to interact in real time in on-line after-class discussions. Customers are able to provide direct feedback, and receive personalized responses. Students have (or had) the opportunity to ask that question (that they were afraid to ask in class) through a medium in which they were more comfortable. When drafting laws, or social media policies, the vast potential of social media should be considered just as thoroughly as any potential pitfalls.
Because these areas are rapidly changing, and because legislators, or those drafting policies for your organization, may not be as familiar with social media, it is vitally important to engage those fluent in the medium when drafting rules that will effect social media. Include members of your marketing, advertising, and public relations staff in your discussions, and be sure to seek out members of your organization that are active, both personally and professionally, on social media. These are the people who will understand the actual ramifications of the policies that your are proposing and may also be able to provide you with more efficient and effective means to accomplish your goals without stifling social media's benefits. If the people who are writing your policies, (or your State's legislation) aren't actively engaged in social media, they may not see the potential benefits that overly restrictive policies can preclude.
Let me know what you think.
Craig Moore
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)