Albuquerque’s top cop is laying down the law when it comes to his officers' behavior and postings on online social networks. Albuquerque Police Department Chief Ray Schultz sent his department a memo Thursday regarding an impending Facebook and other social networking policy. APD officers may soon have to watch what they post on online.“You say it, you own it. You’re going to be held accountable for it,” Schultz said.
There’s been a lot of attention on social media since APD gang unit officer Trey Economidy was found describing his job as “human waste disposal” on Facebook. Schultz said a new policy will be in place in the next few days.“In law enforcement you kind of live under a microscope, and when you make comments that could adversely affect your ability to testify in court is where you cross the line,” Schultz said.
Action 7 News obtained a copy of the memo that Schultz sent to the whole department. It basically states that officers who identify themselves as APD online are representing the department. Schultz also cautioned officers that speech made regarding their official duties is not protected under First Amendment rights and could result in discipline. Police union president Joey Sigala hasn’t read the memo yet, but said he worries a social media policy could be in violation of the First Amendment. “And if it comes down to it, when I read the policy, we’re going to have major heartburn and heartache over it and we’ll address it as need be,” Sigala said.
What are your thoughts on public officials having to watch what they say on these social networks? Do you think that they should be able to say whatever they want or should they continue to display a positive image on these public forums? Do you believe that this is censorship and a direct violation of the first amendment rights of these individuals? Think about other public officials who have done similar things like NY Rep. Chris Lee and infamous Craigslist photos. Respond in a short paragraph. Have a great weekend!
-Noriega
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posted By Brandon
ReplyDeleteI do not believe public officials should be able to say whatever they want on social networking site. I believe they should represent their department in a positive way and should limit what they post to what is positive. If officers themselves are saying rude things about their department, why would the public respect them. I believe it could be a censorship to the first ammendment if they did not sign anything saying they could not say what ever they felt like saying. But for future officers, the department could have them sign a paper stating that they are only allowed post positive things on social networking sights until they leave their position as an officer. This is what I think
Public officials should have to watch what they say. They are to respect the authority of the officers above them. While freedom of speech does allow the officers to say what they want, it does not prevent them from being fired.
ReplyDeleteMichael Gendron
I feel like public officials should have to watch what they say. I do feel like it is censorship, but since they are representing the city they should hold a positive image. I don't feel as though it is directly breaking the first amendment since it's not protected by that exactly.
ReplyDeleteIvan Rodriguez
I think that public officials should,"think before they post." They represent New Mexico and should have a positive image everywhere they go. Their behavior on the internet can also tell things about what they do on the job and can even lower the rate of corrupt officials. The new policy does not directly violate the first amendment since it applies in the government workplace.
ReplyDeleteI accredit that public officials should not be able to be perceptive on their social network regarding their job. The policy does contaminate the first amendment, but also its in a government enviroment and does effect the privacy of them so public officals should watch what they say. Today, Substantive Due Process is used to protect the individual against exploitation or legislation that creates an undue burden on individuals, or on an identifiable group or class of citizens.
ReplyDelete-Ronnie Bowman
I think that public officials should have to be careful about what they say online if they can be identified. Having a good image is important to both law enforcement and the public, and I think that enforcing a few rules about what they say online would not be significantly unjust or violate the first amendment, and that it is the duty of public officials to make sure that what they say isn't harmful to the city.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Hall
I think that anyone should be held responsible for what they say, whether its in person or on a website. Law enforcement and public officials should especially watch what they say because they represent departments of government. This means that what they say effects both them, AND everyone else in their department.
ReplyDeleteI think APD officers should be responsible for the things they post over the internet because they have control over their self image, and New Mexico. This is not a violation of the first amenedment because this involves the government directly.
ReplyDelete-Tyler Walker
Apd officers should be competley responsibles for what they on social networks such facebook. although I feel that if APD officers don't like there jobs why say it on social networks instead just quit. Apd officers should actually be displaying a postive image as well on these social networks. no it is not a direct violation of the first amenedment becuase of the freedom part. Anyone who violates the memo should be in trouble.
ReplyDeleteI feel that police officers should be able to say whatever they want on social networking sites. However I feel that anything that they post that is work related should be appropriate and positive or there will be consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think that public officials should be able to speak their mind in any situation. I personally think that a positive image on social networking sites and places like that should be encouraged though. It's one thing to encourage an attitude or demeanor. It's another to force it.
ReplyDelete