When Twitter Isn't Appropriate - Social Media Explorer
When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate
When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate
by
Jason Falls
Jason Falls

We’re at a point in the evolution of the information age, the age of self-publishing, Web 2.0 or whatever we want to label where we are in our increasingly wired world, that, if we do not establish some parameters of behavior, we’ll lose it all. This notion struck me as I read an article by Maryclarie Dale of the Associated Press called, “Tweets Unwanted Twist At Trial.”

The article told the story of Eric Wuest, a juror in a Philadelphia trial who tweeted that the verdict in a high-profile criminal case was forthcoming. While he did not disclose information about the verdict, or the trial for that matter, he violated the normal judicial instructions to not disclose or discuss the trial at hand with anyone. Wuest didn’t get in trouble, other than to be given a stern talking to by the judge in the case, but he did something we as an on-line community need to understand and take a stand against.

Social media is not a special place on the Internet where rules and rights are blurred. Sure, U.S. and International law are far behind in providing fair protection and policing of the web. If a server is in Switzerland, did you post that libelous statement in Switzerland or in the comfort of your Silicon Valley office? Yes, there will forever be trolls and turds, black hat sneaks and cyber criminals who continually maneuver through the system, committing crimes and finding loopholes. But for the rest of us, the fair majority, we need to exercise a little bit of common sense.

Balance
Image via Wikipedia

Twitter is not a forum where free speech can run rampant. Neither is Facebook or any other social forum, on-line or off. Eric Wuest probably minded his P’s and Q’s when chatting it up with friends at a Friday night cocktail hour. Why would he assume he didn’t have to on Twitter where everyone and their brother can see what he wrote?

I harken back to the key hang-up most people have with understanding social media or the Internet word. It’s not about the tools and the technology. It’s about a mechanism of communications. You aren’t allowed to communicate sensitive information about a trial if you’re a juror, or proprietary information about your companies business if you’re an employee. So why would you do it online? The rules still apply, even if the law is unclear about which ones apply where.

The first rule I give company employees when teaching them how to be representatives of their employer in their respective online spaces is, “Don’t be stupid.” Sure, I borrowed it from Flickr or Microsoft or some other list of guidelines, but it’s appropriate. Apply a different filter if you must: “When in doubt, don’t.”

Our interconnected world is reaching into unprecedented omnipresence. The thoughts and notions of random people are now being broadcast around the world in lightning speed. For most people, few will notice. But the fact that it’s there changes the impact and measure of one person’s opinions or experiences. It’s permanent. It’s indexed. It’s searchable. If it’s inappropriate or even illegal, you’ve shot yourself in the foot.

Eric Wuest probably should have been held in contempt of court. It would have sent a stronger message to all of us who love social media tools so. Mind your P’s and Q’s folks. If you don’t there will be repercussions. No matter how personal your space on these networks is, we can see it. It doesn’t just belong to you.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About the Author

Jason Falls
Jason Falls is the founder of Social Media Explorer and one of the most notable and outspoken voices in the social media marketing industry. He is a noted marketing keynote speaker, author of two books and unapologetic bourbon aficionado. He can also be found at JasonFalls.com.
  • This post was mentioned on Twitter and it is really good site!

  • This post was mentioned on Twitter and it is really good site!

  • I really like this type of Merchandise too, can you help me look at which one has higher price point?
    http://vibramshoesonline.com/

  • I am also a XX fan who really like this! I also like XX, and purchase lots of it every time, like-minded friends can have a look ,we can communicate by the way~~

  • Thank you for this posting. Clearly, jurors' use of social media to conduct research about a case is causing quite a stir. Kansas, Colorado, New Jersey state or federal courts allow it. Georgia and other states do not. Post trial jury interviews show that despite court admonitions, jurors want to know everything they can about a case in order to make a decision they can be proud of. An admirable goal no doubt. As in the case of other jury trial innovations, we are likely headed toward eventually accepting this tendency of jurors since it is compulsive behavior that is not likely to cease with court instructions. Instead of trying to cure the problem with an instruction, we might try a brief training or orientation session with jurors to quell their desire to look for outside information. We would also be well advised to conduct advance research on the Web to identify the information and sources of information about the case that appear on the Web in order to see it before jurors do and deal with it directly in court.

    • Thank you for this, Dr. Waites. Great thoughts here. Hopefully some
      legal scholars can weigh in. What you offered sounds good on my end.
      Training jurors on how to be effective and law-abiding in their
      efforts can't be bad and you're right: they won't stop using the
      technology available to them.

  • DrGerius

    buy prednisone – prednisone,buy prednisone – prednisone,buy viagra – viagra,buy fioricet – fioricet,buy ativan – ativan,buy tramadol – tramadol,buy lexapro – lexapro,buy synthroid – synthroid,buy valtrex – valtrex,buy cipro – cipro,buy prednisone – prednisone

  • when twitter isn’t appropriate : http://twurl.nl/asennr

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • RT @corvida When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate by @jasonfalls http://bit.ly/kZTJ Hint: don’t Twitter a from the courtroom!

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • RT @IdoNotes: Reading: When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate from Social Media Explorer http://bit.ly/kZTJ

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Reading: When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate from Social Media Explorer http://bit.ly/kZTJ

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Jason Falls – When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate: http://twurl.nl/q2pwjf

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Casting directors can find young and energetic film producers who have done some remarkable pieces of work. IamAnArtist has many film production jobs listed on it so that the right opportunity meets with the right talent.

  • Casting agents can make casting calls through IamAnArtist as we have the best network of the most talented resources in the art and entertainment industry.

  • RT @GrowMap The first rule for company employees when using their respective online spaces is, “Don’t be stupid.” http://twurl.nl/2v51mc

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • The first rule for company employees when using their respective online spaces is, “Don’t be stupid.” http://twurl.nl/2v51mc

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

    It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

  • Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

    It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

  • Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

    It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

  • Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

    It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

  • Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

    It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

  • Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

    It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

  • Aside from breaches of confidential information, like in this jury case…. I can think of hundreds of cases where Twitter isn't strategically appropriate or likely to likely to be very effective, especially for corporations.

    It a very good tool for certain kinds of companies and individuals to connect with others, but it's no panacea or cutting-edge revolution for many types of people and businesses I've spoken with. Many of them lack the commitment, curiosity or the right kind of business model to use it advantageously.

  • When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate – @jasonfalls – http://jijr.com/ZzD

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • When Twitter Isn’t Appropriate http://tinyurl.com/cpfvc2

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • RT @annenwood: When Twitter isn’t appropriate http://bit.ly/pf7Mm

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • When Twitter isn’t appropriate http://bit.ly/pf7Mm

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  • Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

  • Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

  • Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

  • Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

  • Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

  • Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

  • hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

    Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

  • hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

    Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

  • hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

    Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

  • hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

    Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

  • hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

    Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

  • hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

    Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

  • hmmm let's try this again (think there might be something going on with Disqus – my last comment simply dissappeared…)

    Anyways – what I wanted to say is that I agree it's critical for people to understand that the internet is not a blackhole where you're words flash up and then dissappear, it's more like a permanent tattoo of everything you've ever written or posted. With social networks becoming a bigger part of every activity we do online you're identity is more public and visible than every before and you have to protect and present it like you would offline. I wrote a similar post about “online manners” (http://www.socialmedialand.net/2009/01/21/stori…) but this example and others that have been in the news lately have inspired me to tackle the topic again from another angle. Thanks for the insight!

    • Thank you, Katie. And thanks for the link to your post. We'll check it out!

  • Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

  • Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

  • Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

  • Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

  • Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

  • Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

  • No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

  • No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

  • No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

  • No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

  • No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

  • No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

  • Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

  • Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

  • Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

  • Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

  • Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

  • Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

  • Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

    It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

    A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

    Great post, Jason…

  • Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

    It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

    A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

    Great post, Jason…

  • Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

    It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

    A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

    Great post, Jason…

  • Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

    It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

    A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

    Great post, Jason…

  • Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

    It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

    A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

    Great post, Jason…

  • Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

    It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

    A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

    Great post, Jason…

  • Proof that common sense isn't so common. I tweeted a link a while back to a newspaper article wherein a multi-million dollar federal trial had to be dismissed because jurors were tweeting and looking up info about the case on their BlackBerrys/smartphones. Of course, they had been instructed not to. I suggested that the offending jurors be billed for the amount of money (taxpayer money) wasted in the first trial.

    It's unbelievable to me that anyone would do that, but again, my main point: common sense isn't that common. It is when people cannot govern their own behavior that it becomes necessary for others to do it for them. Take away the cell phones at the start of the trial, and yes, this is punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

    A fair trial is one of the foundations of a legitimate system, and should be treated with the reverence and respect that it deserves from those who are being asked to–literally–pass judgment on another.

    Great post, Jason…

    • Thanks Jen. You're right. It is confounding that people would just blatantly disregard the instructions of the judge. Our judicial system is too important to adulterate that way. Hopefully, these discussions will help remind folks of that.

  • You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

    From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

    Great thoughts!

  • You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

    From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

    Great thoughts!

  • You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

    From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

    Great thoughts!

  • You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

    From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

    Great thoughts!

  • You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

    From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

    Great thoughts!

  • You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

    From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

    Great thoughts!

  • You couldn't be more correct. Common sense still applies, now more than ever! I suspect many of the mishaps have more to do with generational differences and inexperience, thus “lessons learned the hard way” come into play.

    From a business perspective, companies must include social networking sites in their acceptable use policies. Only including email and broad Internet usage is a big oversight! Once those policies are in place, companies must equip their employees for success (Zappos style).

    Great thoughts!

    • No doubt, Cheryl. I was pleased when our most recent harassment training happened at Doe and social networking sites were incorporated into the thinking. (We have good lawyers.) Companies really need to focus on this emerging medium as one to apply policies for. Thanks for the thoughts.

  • Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

  • Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

  • Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

  • Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

  • Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

  • Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

  • Excellent advice Jason, common sense is a concept that seems to get lost within the open free-flowing world of social media. Whether it is speaking, writing, or tweeting you should probably think before you do it.

    • Agree, Stuart. Thanks for the comment, as usual.

  • Pingback: Internet Marketing, Strategy & Technology Links - Mar 31, 2009 « Sazbean()

  • It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

    But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

  • It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

    But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

  • It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

    But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

  • It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

    But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

  • It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

    But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

  • It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

    But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

  • It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

    No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

    Thanks for chiming in.

  • It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

    No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

    Thanks for chiming in.

  • It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

    No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

    Thanks for chiming in.

  • It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

    No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

    Thanks for chiming in.

  • It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

    No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

    Thanks for chiming in.

  • It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

    No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

    Thanks for chiming in.

  • Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

  • Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

  • Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

  • Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

  • Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

  • Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

  • Is Eric's tweet any less damaging than a Court TV reporter–should one do this–live blogging a trial?

    • It's much more damaging, Ari, because he is a juror – an integral part of the justice system for that trial (and any trial speaking generally). One of the people who is charged with making a guilty/not-guilty verdict is violating the sanctity of the judge's orders and the integrity of the trial by communicating openly about it in a public forum (on-line or off-). A court reporter is different because they don't play a role in the outcome. (Keep in mind the jurors are supposed to not consume media coverage of trials on which they are working as well.)

      But thanks for the push back. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

  • While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

    Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

    We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

  • While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

    Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

    We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

  • While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

    Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

    We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

  • While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

    Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

    We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

  • While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

    Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

    We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

  • While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

    Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

    We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

  • While I agree it's doubly important to make sure what you present online is something you want to have permanently associated with you, isn't this example more to do with the person as opposed to the tool?

    Say there had been an instance where Eric was having lunch at a diner, or drinks at a bar. He offers the same info, except it's to the person sat next to him. Again, this is down to Eric (the person) as opposed to the bar or restaurant (the tool).

    We all need to work with self-censorship, but when that fails it's not always the tools that are to blame.

    • It is up to the individual, Danny, but it's also up to the community to ensure we're helping establish the norms with the tools. Frankly, he should have known better and followed the judge's instructions. Not communicating about the trial applies everywhere. Social media is no different.

      No, it's not up to Twitter to ensure jurors aren't using it inappropriately, but if we, the user base, don't make sure we're recognizing there are appropriate times and inappropriate times, the court will for us. And that, my friend, will suck.

      Thanks for chiming in.