Guidelines For CWU Branch Facebook Pages And Twitter Account

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Letter to Branches





No. 328/13
Ref: SS/SW
Date: 15th May 2013




Dear Colleagues

Guidelines For CWU Branch Facebook Pages And Twitter Accounts

There has been a welcome increase in the number of branches making better use of social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter. Generally these can be a useful addition to the portfolio of communication tools and can, if used carefully, extend the union’s reach and effectiveness.

As with any communication tool, there are potential dangers. Without breaching the necessary confidentiality that must apply, it is clear from NDC cases and branch complaints there would be benefit in the NEC agreeing a set of guidelines to assist branches in the management of these activities.

It is relatively straight-forward to offer guidance on how to spot inappropriate content, and what administrative arrangements need to be in place to deal with problems. The attached guidelines are therefore proposed, drawn from what is acknowledged as “best practice” in social media circles.

However, setting out guidelines on content is all-together more problematic. Clearly any such guidelines must help authors avoid disciplinary or misconduct proceedings, must be consistent with the union’s rulebook, and must also help protect the union in a legal, organisational and reputational sense.

These guidelines do not purport to address all the issues raised by the use of Facebook, Twitter and other new media by branches. But the NEC believes that they will make a helpful and necessary contribution to ensuring that the CWU as a whole makes good use of these tools whilst avoiding some potential pitfalls.

Any queries on this LtB should be addressed to Simon Sapper, Assistant Secretary, at CWU Headquarters.

Yours sincerely,

W Hayes
General Secretary

[TrueBlueTerrier]

GUIDELINES FOR POSTINGS ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER
ADMINISTRATORS
There must be a named administrator for each Facebook page or twitter feed, reporting and accountable to the Branch Secretary (The Branch Secretary can also be an administrator).
All administrators must have received the union’s training on Equality and Diversity and Bullying and Harassment.
All Facebook pages and twitter feeds purporting to be official media channels of the branch must be properly established by a recorded decision of the branch committee and/or officers.
Especially because material is unlikely to be pre-moderated, complaints about postings or tweets must be handled promptly by a senior branch officer.
If there is any doubt in the administrator’s mind about the propriety of any post, it should be removed pending further consideration.
Please refer to the Annex on Identifying Problem Content

Annex: Identifying problem content

There are several types of content that are commonly addressed in community guidelines. Here is a sample list:
Profane, defamatory, offensive or violent language
“Trolling”, or posting deliberately disruptive statements meant to hijack comment threads or throw discussions off-track
Attacks on specific groups or any comments meant to harass, threaten or abuse an individual
Hateful or discriminatory comments regarding race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or political beliefs
Links or comments containing sexually explicit content material
Discussion of illegal activity
Spam, link baiting or files containing viruses that could damage the operation of other people’s computers or mobile devices
Acknowledgement of intent to stalk an individual or collect private information without disclosure
Misrepresentation of the union’s policies
Commercial solicitations or promotion of a competitor
Violations of copyright or intellectual property rights
Content that relates to confidential or proprietary business information
Content determined to be inappropriate, in poor taste, or otherwise contrary to the purposes of the forum
Inappropriate personal promotion

[doorstepped]

I have set up a Facebook group for our DO for CWU Members and set it to private, so only those invited to the group and see it and nobody else.

nice and safe ( except if someone is looking over your shoulder )

[clashcityrocker]

I have set up a Facebook group for our DO for CWU Members and set it to private, so only those invited to the group and see it and nobody else.

nice and safe ( except if someone is looking over your shoulder )

Or one of them decides to pass on the content..........

[fishtank]

I have set up a Facebook group for our DO for CWU Members and set it to private, so only those invited to the group and see it and nobody else.

nice and safe ( except if someone is looking over your shoulder )

Don't know a lot about FB.
Fake mates(or real ones) are not really my thing but from the little knowledge I do have I thought that if the members of your group don't have their settings at private what they post will be visible on their profile/timeline thingy to their "friends" etc.

[doorstepped]

nothing that is posted on the FB page is visible, thats the first thing I checked. no matter what the posters settings are set to.

[clashcityrocker]

I would make sure you and anyone involved has a copy of the RM internet use policy.

[LinChong]

By Adam Wagner, December 19th 2012:

"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has published interim guidance on when to prosecute people for grossly offensive and obscene messages they send on social media. The guidelines are now subject to a full public consultation. Earlier this year, I took part in a series of round table discussions with the DPP over how the guidelines would look.

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 prohibits any message sent “by means of a public electronic communications network” which is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character“.

The guidelines are sensible, to a point. They will make it less likely in future that people are prosecuted for saying stupid things online. Prosecutors are reminded that many offences will already be covered under other criminal laws such as those dealing with harassment, stalking or other violent threats. Cases which are not covered by those laws, that is the grossly offensive etc messages, are “subject to a high threshold and in many cases a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest“. The CPS then seeks to define “grossly” offensive, at least in the negative, as cases which are more than:

Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.

Another sensible aspect of the guidelines is that they identify a number of post-communication events which will reduce the chance of a prosecution, such as an apology or swift removal of the message.

However, and this is a big “however”, the guidance still leaves prosecutors deciding what is “more than” the offensive, shocking, satirical etc. During the roundtable discussions, the DPP was fond of saying “context is everything” (in fact, the guidance says “context is important”), and he is right. But given how narrowly the guidelines attempt to draw the s.127 offence, it does leave you wondering what kinds cases will be prosecuted. It may be that no cases are brought at all as a result of the guidelines. But who knows.

The underlying point is that this law, which was designed for a completely different purpose, has given the CPS the role of policing speech on social media. And that was never Parliament’s intention when it approved the law in 2003 (context is everything: Facebook was launched in February 2004, Twitter in March 2006).

Unfortunately, there have already been a number of cases brought under this legislation, designed before social media was invented, which are highly problematic for free speech. The BBC has helpfully listed some of them here, and you can read my views on one of the more recent cases here: Twelve weeks in prison for sick jokes on Facebook? Really?.

I raised a number of questions in that post in relation to consistency, political speech and the fact that this law is now an anachronism and needs to be reviewed. One of the pernicious aspects of this law is that prosecutions are brought very quickly, prosecuted in the magistrates courts and guilty pleas entered within hours. That is what happened to Matthew Woods (the April Jones ‘joker’), and even under the current guidance it seems that the same could happen to Woods again.

The CPS is absolutely right to set down as sensible approach to prosecutions as it doesn’t have the luxury of ignoring bad laws. It may also avoid the embarrassment of being criticised by the courts in cases such as Paul Chambers. But this is a law which urgently needs to be reviewed.

Social media is not the Wild West. As the guidance makes clear, there are already a number of other criminal laws which protect people from harassment, stalking and threats of violence on social media as they would be on the street or in the workplace. But what does s.127 add except an opportunity for prosecutors to decide what kind of speech is ‘in the public interest’?

In the final analysis, this guidance, which leaves prosecutors in a much better position than they were previously, still leaves them deciding, when faced with a tweet, Facebook post or whatever, whether it did not:

obviously go beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in an open and diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.

Do we really want police and prosecutors deciding what speech is tolerable and acceptable? Do they have the experience, intelligence and social sensitivity to do so? Will they be capable of leaving their own prejudices, including political, religious and social views, at the door? Should they be concentrating on other crimes rather than (as the guidance admits) the hundreds of millions of messages sent each month on social media?

Most importantly, can we imagine a single case in which a prosecution would be appropriate and in the public interest? A prosecution which would make our society better without having a disproportionate chilling effect on free speech on social media? I am not sure I can.

As always, we won’t know what effects this guidance has until we hear about the first cases brought under it. In the meantime, people should still be very careful about what they tweet or post on Facebook. And that is a problem for freedom of speech."

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/12/19 ... t-of-date/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;