The news headlines over the past few days have been filled with coverage of the BBC’s controversial decision to suspend Match of the Day presenter, Gary Lineker, because of what he posted on Twitter about the Government’s stance on migrants and refugees. In consequence of this decision, much of the BBC’s football coverage was affected over the weekend, with programmes either being cancelled or being shown without any presenters because Lineker’s colleagues chose to show solidarity with him.
This leads us onto the question of how far an employer could reasonably go in restricting the social media use of its employees. It is important to make clear at the outset that the BBC has specific obligations relating to its impartiality that would not necessarily affect many other employers, and to this extent, it might be classed as a special case. However, it may well be the wish of many employers to have at least some level of restriction on what their employees can post on Twitter and other social media platforms.
Passionate debates
Those who use Twitter will be all too well aware of how passionate the debates can become and how easily they can sometimes spill over into hostile, and even abusive, arguments.
If an employer decided that they would prevent their staff from making any political comments on social media, for example, certain fundamental human rights issues would be engaged. The right to freedom of expression (speech) and the rights to freedom of thought and to freedom of assembly (Articles 9, 10 and 11) could all be impacted through any such action by an employer. None of these rights are “absolute rights” though and national governments do have limited powers to restrict them under human rights laws (e.g. the banning of organisations that promote terrorism and the unlawfulness of individuals inciting violence).
Where an employer would justifiably be entitled to restrict an employee’s use of social media is where the employee was using a social media account that could somehow be related back to the employer or was even owned by the employer. It is fully understandable that an employer would be keen to avoid any of its employees tweeting a strong political opinion on its behalf, at least without prior authorisation from the most senior management.
Clear boundaries
It is often advisable for employees to make clear on their personal social media accounts that any content posted by them is entirely their own opinion and not that of their employer, particularly where a link is provided on their social media account to their employer’s website or where they state themselves as being an employee of that particular employer.
Even so, if an employer finds that its employee has posted offensive material, such as something racist, misogynistic or otherwise highly discriminatory, it could potentially result in the employer taking disciplinary action against the employee.
Such a matter could be highly complex, as the employee would presumably state that the action was completely unconnected with their employment and was done outside of working hours. The question would then be whether or not anybody reading the social media content posted by the employee would be able to link this back to the employer, such as in the case of a high profile individual, or where work colleagues and other work contacts who had seen the post were so outraged and offended that it would impact upon the working relationships moving forward.
Needless to say, some social media posts can become criminal in nature if they are so offensive as to cross the boundaries of what is and is not lawful. An example of this is the worrying trend of certain individuals sending racist and threatening communications to sportspeople and politicians.
It now appears that the dispute between Gary Lineker and the BBC will be resolved, with an independent enquiry likely to take place into a very delicate issue of what BBC figures can and can’t say on their own social media platforms. It is vital that the balance is struck between ensuring that rules are complied with in terms of impartiality while still protecting the fundamental right to freedom of speech.