[ad_1]
By now, social media has become an increasingly widespread and sometimes unsuitable tool for school personnel. Over the years, the count of defamation complaints has been lost, which have been followed by incorrect positions, as well as many disciplinary procedures have been initiated, but when it comes to the internet world, the burden of proof is loaded the accused is sometimes more complicated than one might imagine.
How a post can lead to disciplinary proceedings
Not only what you write, but also what you like, you need to be careful. For example, the well-known provision of the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy, Section III, ordinance 03/03/2016, n. 246, with which it was argued that the addition of the comment “I like” to a news item published on the Facebook site that could damage the image of the administration assumes disciplinary relevance; – Although the news had a complex content, as in addition to the information on the suicide, it also provided information on the prompt intervention of the Penitentiary Police, the lack of a timely withdrawal of the sentence expressed, after having been unequivocally followed by other sentences reprehensible, excludes that the conduct can be considered irrelevant.
A photo between commissioners and candidates on Facebook is not proof of incompatibility
The case in question referred to a dispute raised by some plaintiffs who alleged that from the photographs published on the social network Facebook it can be inferred that between the commissioner and some candidates who all teach the same subject at the same school, there could be relationships other than simple knowledge but friendship, knowledge and trust. To do this, the applicants submitted photographs downloaded from the aforementioned social network that would support their thesis. Regional Administrative Court of Sardinia-Cagliari, First Section, Judgment of May 3, 2017, n. 28 found that the so-called “friendships” on Facebook are completely irrelevant since the very functioning of the social network allows people to get in touch with completely strangers in everyday life. Nor can it be expected that users (excluding improper use of the medium) have to check all possible contraindications of the social network since, as it has evolved, it is now a difficult mode of communication to classify (everyone does the use that it considers most appropriate but above all it is a playful and recreational activity). In short, it is certainly not Facebook itself that can materialize one of the causes of incompatibility provided for by art. 51 cpc. The subject is so peaceful that it does not need any particular study. As for the photos “downloaded” from the social network, the question does not change. They do not prove any “habitual commensality” foreseen by art. 51 cpc. Also remembering that in public competitions the members of the examining commissions are obliged to abstain solely and exclusively if any of the conditions strictly provided in art. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without the causes of incompatibility provided for by the aforementioned provision, precisely for this reason, being the object of analogical extension (State Cons., Section V, July 24, 2014, no. 3956, Tar Sardinia, Cagliari, section I, December 28, 2016, no 986).
Is a post on Facebook freedom of criticism and thought?
The Court of Rome, with Sentence, 05-19-2020, processed the case of a disciplinary litigation brought against a teacher accused of having published phrases in the chat of the social network Facebook that hinted at poor management of the school. accused of sending those messages during business hours via his phone. The judge, accepting the defense effectively proposed by the teachers’ lawyers, recognized that “such formulation, in relation to the charge inherent to the offense to the image of the institution, should be considered generic as, not reporting the exact wording of the sentences attributed to the applicant, and not containing specific and punctual references to facts and objective circumstances that had been the subject, it does not allow to verify whether what he stated in the chat of the social network Facebook in dispute was a correct manifestation of the right to free expression of thought, including the right to criticism, recognized constitutionally also in relationships and in the workplace , or if, on the contrary, it has exceeded the limits established to this right, causing gratuitous or undue damage to the image and prestige of the public administration that provides employment. The vagueness of some of the expressions used In such a way that it cannot be separated from a wide margin of subjectivity of the relative evaluations, together with the lack of description of the object of the aforementioned statements, it cannot be considered adequate to allow the employee to understand the exact scope of the charges in her against and therefore what were the specific charges against which he had to defend himself, since the reference to the date and time of publication of the censored statements could not be considered sufficient for that purpose. (…) “.
The use of the telephone must be accredited during office hours.
“Regarding the new charge made against the plaintiff, namely the use of the mobile phone during business hours, in the aforementioned chat communications deemed offensive, the judge believes that evidence has been left without. In no case was evidence provided that the aforementioned messages were sent through the applicant’s mobile phone, it cannot be excluded that they were sent by other means of transmission and not by the applicant, since the latter could also have instructed someone. to organize such shipment. “
[ad_2]
