Crackdown on Athlete Twitter Use Points Up Frustration, May Violate 1st Amendment
August 31st, 2010 |
The University of North Carolina seems to be cracking down on social networking abuses in the wake of last week’s news that UNC’s football team was under investigation for “academic misconduct.” According to ESPN’s College Nation Basketball Blog, team captain Marvin “Austin, who has been questioned by the NCAA about improper contact with agents, posted around 2,400 (Twitter) messages, including ones of him buying designer sunglasses and running up a $143 bill at Cheesecake Factory.” Others have been engaged in questionable conduct as well.
UNC has announced an update to the social networking policies (which it says are not related to any one thing) in its Student-Athlete Handbook, according to a column today by Tim Gardner on USA TODAY’s “Campus Rivalry” site. Gardner goes on to quote a story in The (Raleigh, N.C.) News & Observer in which reporter Robbi Pickeral reports “each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitor the content of team members’ social networking sites and postings.”
Pickeral writes that the updated handbook now requires if an “athlete’s online content violates the law or NCAA, University or athletic department policies, sanctions could range from removal of the posting to dismissal from the team.”
We are seeing harsher and harsher social networking policies across all industries and organizations. While it’s understandable that athletic officials might want to control unauthorized and damaging communications, much of what came out in the UNC case seems to be truthful but embarrassing. One could argue that the “solution” is for people not to behave immorally, illegally or in violation of university or NCAA rules in the first place, rather than try to stop athletes from tweeting about their indiscretions.
But when do social media bans or excessive controls (whatever those are) affect 1st Amendment freedoms? The NHL, NFL and NBA have all instituted Twitter bans at times when the use of sites like Twitter and Facebook would affect or interfere with game play. That seems entirely reasonable. Professional sports teams are businesses. “Regular businesses” generally have in their “Standards of Business Conduct” bans against representing the company in a bad light, divulging confidential information, and failing to use company time for the purpose for which the employee was hired. Professional athletes could potentially do all of these things with the misuse of Twitter.
But are there rules against acting like an idiot? Expressing one’s opinion on a political party or candidate? Posting videos of cats doing silly things? Tweeting “Hi, mom!”? These things would seem to be protected by the First Amendment and could hardly be seen as damaging to the organization. Will the latest UNC ban keep athletes off of Facebook and Twitter altogether? Is that unfair or unreasonable?
| Sphere This |
Actually, I think there might be a gambling angle here as well. Particularly if player injuries or weaknesses come into the picture. But it does get into some interesting territory with regard to the shamateurism of college athletics. All agree that college football is a big business. Otherwise, why would there be a BCS, not to mention huge amounts paid for broadcast rights for it? Therefore it follows that this could fall under the more restrictive concepts of commercially contracted limits to free speech.
Comment by Martin Chorich — August 31, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
While I agree there is irony in addressing the Twittering of indiscretions, rather than the indiscretions themselves, freedom of expression doesn’t mean that there won’t be consequences for what you say. I don’t really see the difference between representing a collegiate organization and a professional organization– neither one is a right. As long as there is no a priori censorship, the First Amendment has not been violated.
When Whole Foods CEO John Mackey penned a WSJ op-ed describing his opposition to health care reform, conservatives (including the Sentinel’s editor) cried about how his First Amendment Rights were being violated. What, because people aren’t going to shop at his store? You can say anything you want, but sometimes it is just a better idea to stay quiet.
It would be a different story if the students in question were blowing the whistle on others in their programs who were receiving unfair compensation. Then, the University would be wrong to punish them, because their conduct would have been exemplary instead of execrable.
Comment by John Glass — August 31, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
Interesting points. It seems that one consistent theme regarding the appropriateness of applying the First Amendment is the business nature of the activity. Although college football as an entity is highly commercial, its athletes are not professionals, and so their activities should be viewed within the context of their role as students.
UNC is a public school. There are numerous rulings that suggest the First Amendment remains in force inside the public university’s ivy-covered walls.
In Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1973), a graduate student at the University was expelled for distributing on campus an “underground” newspaper that the university deemed “indecent.” The Court reversed a lower court ruling and ordered Papish reinstated, stating:
“We think Healy makes it clear that the mere dissemination of ideas — no matter how offensive to good taste — on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency’” and “the First Amendment leaves no room for the operation of a dual standard in the academic community with respect to the content of speech.”
http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/studentpress.html
Comment by joel — August 31, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
I still don’t see how this is a limitation of the athletes’ speech. I assume they aren’t being expelled (which would certainly curtail their speech at a University), but just removed from the team. Their activity on the team is not a platform for their speech, so what are they losing in this case? If someone is a member of my (free, not-a-business) private club and they are continually engaging in behavior that they should have been aware is unacceptable, is it then the case that I can’t force them to leave the club because that would violate their First Amendment rights?
Comment by John Glass — September 1, 2010 @ 12:11 pm