Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
In the modern world to chat with friends, meet interesting people, or discuss exciting problems, it is not necessary to leave home and go somewhere. All these pleasures can be obtained on the Internet: blogs, forums, chats, and social networks. For many people, the virtual world has become an impromptu platform, where you can express your opinion about exciting problems, the situation in the country and the world, and the actions of politicians. In addition, it is the opportunity to argue, develop a topic or debate, and prove your point. Undoubtedly, freedom of speech on the Internet is one of the pillars of a democratic society. The good evidence that social media is used by opposition movements, human rights activists, and journalists to write about situations in their country, world, and so on. On the other hand, the Internet has also become a tool for hate propaganda, a channel for the distribution of materials that can harm the morals and health of citizens, as well as undermine the security of states.
Nowadays, social media is widely used by teachers too. For educators, it became a platform where they can share information with peers or communicate with students and parents; which means school life became easier for everybody. For instance, with the help of social media tasks such as creating a more open educational environment with includes the maximum number of participants in the educational process and allowing various educational and educational tasks to develop creativity became possible. However, sometimes in school forums, you can always see negative comments from parents; under teachers’ posts or announcements about the school. It could cause any problem for the school or teachers because there always would be parents, who do not share the teachers’ view or do not agree with the announcement. But… it is not the only problem using social media by teachers as most teachers have their accounts on Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter, where they share their political views or personal photos in bars, or at night clubs while consuming alcohol, and sometimes vulgar photos too. Hence, society starts to judge these teachers by saying such words: you are a teacher, you are the face of the community or your students are watching you. Even, some people about these posts to school district too. That’s why we can hear news like ‘Teacher stopped from promotion because of her political view on Facebook’ or ‘Teacher was dismissed for her Vulgar Photos on Instagram’. Thus, some schools. In other words, there is no doubt that Social Media has a tremendous impact on Teachers life where some School District making policies to use Social Media for Teachers. Consequently, most teachers do not are there any boundaries for using Social Media; if there are where is the crossing point and what are the results of crossing it? My paper will focus on how the First Amendment works for Educators’ Social media by analyzing court cases. In addition, will try to answer these questions:
- Are there any legal laws that support School Districts’ decision to control Teachers’ Social Media?
- What restrictions School Districts can put on teachers when they use Social Media?
- What result could it cause to not follow School Policy, when using Social Media, for teachers?
Techers’ Free Speech Rights
First of all, before starting to focus on Social Media, it is necessary to understand how the First Amendment works for School teachers. There are two big cases about the Right of Free Speech for teachers, which are: Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), and Connick v. Myers (1983); and I would like to emphasize them.
Pickering, a teacher in Township High School District, was fired because of her letter to the local newspaper where she was concerned about decision of her school to increase tax to develop educational and athletic programs of the school. He contested it as a violation of his right to freedom of speech according to the First Amendment. However, the District Court confirmed that his right was not violated. Hence, Pickering appealed it, in the Supreme Court; where it was mentioned that the teacher’s right to freedom of speech as a public employee needs to be balanced to maintain employers’ interest but Pickerings’ public concern could serve as a reason for dismissal. There is one comment from the court: The problem … is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interests of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. (Pickering v. Board of Education,1968) [1]
On the other hand, in Connicks’ case the word ‘public concern’ is completely clarified. Myers was employed as an Assistant District Attorney in New Orleans. She was asked to transfer to prosecute cases in a different section of the criminal court. This was a transfer that she objected to due to her work with a counseling program for convicted defendants who were released on probation, which she felt would act as a conflict of interest. In response to the requirement that she transfer, she created a questionnaire of 15 questions concerning office morale and the feelings of others in her office. She then distributed it without the prior knowledge of her supervisor, Connick. After Connick found out about the survey he terminated her employment. During court, it was emphasized that only one question Connick protects under the First Amendment; other questions related to staff, which is a personal concern. That’s why the court concluded that her fire was fair and this is one of the comments from the court “Myers’ questionnaire touched upon matters of public concern in only a most limited sense; her survey, in our view, is most accurately characterized as an employee grievance concerning internal office policy. The limited First Amendment interest involved here does not require that Connick tolerate action that he reasonably believed would disrupt the office, undermine his authority, and destroy close working relationships. Myers’ discharge therefore did not offend the First Amendment.” (Connick v. Myers, 1983) [2]
, it can be concluded that teachers can talk or share their point of view about any public concerns, even if it is related to their workplace, as citizens; but any private or personal concerns that could affect employers’ interest are prohibited.
Reference
- Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/648/pickering-v-board-of-education
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). https://edlawfaqs.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/connick-v-myers.pdf
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.