Why businesses should beware the Facebook convictions

gallery

When Jordan Blackshaw of Marston and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan of Warrington were convicted for offences under the Serious Crimes Act on 16 August 2011, theirs was one of many cases being processed on that day alone.

They were two of the many who found themselves with custodial sentences in the aftermath of the rioting in London, Manchester and Birmingham earlier in the month.

Yet Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan have found themselves in the headlines for reasons other than those they may have expected. In fact, some degree of sympathy, unexpectedly, has been directed their way.

The pair were given four-year sentences each for their actions. But those actions involved nothing physical whatsoever. Nor did the ramifications of their actions invoke any physical event. Effectively, the pair were convicted and sent down for posting on Facebook.

Dig below the surface, and there’s a bit more to it, of course.

Looting

Blackshaw created a Facebook group entitled ‘Smash d(o)wn in Northwich Town’, which urged potential looters to meet in the town centre. Sutcliffe-Keenan, meanwhile, created a ‘Warrington Riots’ page on Facebook, which he removed the morning after he put it up. As it turned out, nothing physical happened as a result of their respective postings, although both were deemed to be inciting others to act lawlessly.

Few have sympathy for their actions, which could, of course, have had genuinely unpleasant consequences. Yet it’s that sentencing, however, that’s caused a real commotion. Some have suggested that the length of time handed down was excessive, and that’s a debate that rumbles on.

But there’s another alarm bell that should be ringing, too. For what’s happened here is that two people have received sizeable sentences for something placed on a social networking site. Something as simple as typing words into Facebook.

And that’s a further headache that’s not gong to be lost on many businesses.

It’s a telling reminder, after all, of the prominence and impact of Facebook. Here is a cast iron example, if one was needed, that this is no niche service. Such is the reach and power of Facebook, that inevitably, care needs to be taken when using the service. The number of harmless virals that do the rounds on the service are the biggest clue. But when it takes a more sinister turn, such as malicious gossip, or encouraging others to break the law, there’s little place to hide.

Protective measures

For a business, this poses some compelling questions, as well as extending one that remains a tough one to resolve. Just how much access should employees of a business have to social networking services in work time?

Let’s keep our feet on the ground. It’s hard, but not impossible, to tie a personal account to any business, although there is a small degree of greyness regarding postings made by a user in company time, and using company computers. That’s not been fully tested in court, but few businesses want to be the first to really give that a try. And you can’t blame them for taking that stance.

The problem is that there’s little concrete information for people to fall back on, which is why many businesses continue to impose a concrete ban on their employees using social networking on company machines. There’s sense to this, too, even if it does feel a little archaic.

If a company gains no advantage to allowing workers access to the likes of Facebook and Twitter, then it’s an understandable tactic to shut off access to the services altogether. The downside to this is employees might not be best happy and, realistically, no action a company takes with regards web access is without some kind of consequence.

Email to a friend

Print this page