Members Personal Facebook Page

Started by deepblue1947, January 14, 2019, 05:44:34 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Luis R. Ramos

#20
         /\
        /  \
       /    \
          |
          |
          |
          |
         /\


            :clap:

        :clap:    :clap:

  :clap:     :clap:     :clap:

Narcissism. Love it! The same reason why people take selfies.
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

Huey Driver

#21
Quote from: OldGuy on January 15, 2019, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2019, 11:00:53 PM
Quote from: Nor'easter on January 14, 2019, 10:54:40 PM...it seems to me that not participating in social media in the current age would be a "loss". 

A loss of what?  Dopamine?
Branding. Communication. Excitement. Laughter.

+1

It's ignorant to ignore the utility of these platforms, particularly for spreading awareness of our mission, Recruiting & Retention, PA, Marketing, and Strategic Communication. Not to mention its other numerous purposes, that are used by all levels of CAP echelon.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2019, 12:47:57 AM
Turn that useless site into a 1-way web experience with no "engagement" and it would die in a month.

I feel compelled to engage on this subject, Eclipse. Narcissism, and being so severely one-sided across a discussion board, really can kill a site...
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right...

SarDragon

Facebook meets a need for me and my wife. We both have had significant health issues in the past five years, and FB has been a great vehicle for keeping friends and family up to speed on the latest happenings. I created closed groups that require vetting for membership, and the posts are available only to members.

As for FB in general, I generally avoid engaging in political or religious discussions. I set my permissions to just Friends, or Friends of Friends. I don't think anything I post on my own timeline is Public. Posts to groups are available to group members.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2019, 10:35:39 PM
The First Amendment does not apply, this is a common misnomer.

The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government passing laws that restrict speech and religion.

CAP, per se, is a private organization, just like a business, and can place whatever restrictions it deems necessary
on its members, who then agree to abide by its rules, whatever those are.

Correctamundo

This is exactly why a school can terminate you for posting nasty/dirty selfies on Instagram.

The Congress cannot infringe (despite regularly doing so); not your employer/host organization.

PHall

Quote from: Simplex on January 14, 2019, 10:35:05 PM
With all the social media available today, and the impact that it can have on your life, I'd be very careful posting "anything" on social media.  College admissions reps and recruiters will look at your posts, prospective employers, maybe even military recruiters will check also.  Be careful!

Yes military recruiters do check, gives them a "heads up" on who they are dealing with.
If you apply for just about any kind of security clearance you will be checked.

There's been more then a few stories out there how "outstanding" students lost college scholarships and admissions from what they have posted on social media.
People seem to forget that the internet is your "permanent record". Once you post it you can never take it back.

etodd

Page two and just about everyone replying has sidetracked to something else. He didn't ask about recruiters or anything like that. LOL
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

deepblue1947

etodd, I think you may have been right in your initial post of where this might go. 

DB

Fester

Quote from: Ned on January 14, 2019, 07:13:57 PM
...  I'm a major foodie.  I make award-winning wines from my own modest vineyard...

As a Chef and Sommelier, how would I go about getting a bottle or two of those wines?   :)
1stLt, CAP
Squadron CC
Group CPO
Eaker - 1996

CAP9907

ok, I am going to call this 'asked and answered' with thanks to Ned for the assist.

I don't really want to lock this thread, but would like any further comments to be on-point and directly related to the original concern.

~ 9907
21 yrs of service

Our Members Code of Conduct can be found here:   http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13.0

deepblue1947

Quote from: deepblue1947 on January 14, 2019, 06:58:18 PM
Get what started e todd?  I just asked a question.  Why get so excited over a perfectly reasonable question?  You want to lock a thread down for asking a question?

DB

Edited:  My apologies, it appears as if your initial assessment was correct. 

DB

JeffDG

Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2019, 10:35:39 PM
The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government passing laws that restrict speech and religion.
That hasn't been true since the 1925 (Gitlow v. New York 268 US 652)

The First Amendment applies to the federal, state and local governments along with agencies thereof.

That said, it most certainly does NOT apply to CAP.

OldGuy

Quote from: JeffDG on January 15, 2019, 04:13:16 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2019, 10:35:39 PM
The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government passing laws that restrict speech and religion.
That hasn't been true since the 1925 (Gitlow v. New York 268 US 652)

The First Amendment applies to the federal, state and local governments along with agencies thereof.

That said, it most certainly does NOT apply to CAP.
OTOH the Kansas CC incident illustrates that, unless there is a specific CAP nexus, the organization ought to have a "hands off" policy vis-a-vis personal, non CAP posts. That has not and probably will not stop Wing weenies from being stupid, but it should.

JeffDG

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 15, 2019, 01:59:18 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2019, 10:35:39 PM
The First Amendment does not apply, this is a common misnomer.

The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government passing laws that restrict speech and religion.

CAP, per se, is a private organization, just like a business, and can place whatever restrictions it deems necessary
on its members, who then agree to abide by its rules, whatever those are.

Correctamundo

This is exactly why a school can terminate you for posting nasty/dirty selfies on Instagram.

The Congress cannot infringe (despite regularly doing so); not your employer/host organization.
Schools are an interesting case.  Public schools in particular.  Private schools can freely ignore the 1st Amendment, unless there is some state law that applies it.

The case you cite is correct.  A school can do that, basically they have a lower burden in the employer-employee relationship.  However, a public school could not fire you for, on your own time, and implying no endorsement from the school, standing in a park with a sign saying "Politician X should be impeached".  A private employer can fire you for that, but a public school could not.

Naked selfies tends to impact order and discipline in a public primary/secondary school.  I would guess that a professor at a public university, however, would be free to post all the nasty selfies he/she wanted to without fear of termination.

JeffDG

Quote from: OldGuy on January 15, 2019, 04:20:14 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 15, 2019, 04:13:16 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2019, 10:35:39 PM
The First Amendment only applies to the Federal Government passing laws that restrict speech and religion.
That hasn't been true since the 1925 (Gitlow v. New York 268 US 652)

The First Amendment applies to the federal, state and local governments along with agencies thereof.

That said, it most certainly does NOT apply to CAP.
OTOH the Kansas CC incident illustrates that, unless there is a specific CAP nexus, the organization ought to have a "hands off" policy vis-a-vis personal, non CAP posts. That has not and probably will not stop Wing weenies from being stupid, but it should.
When asked for an opinion by the Wing Commander or other "wing weenies", I know that I advise a "mind your own business" approach.  If there is some expressed or implied endorsement of CAP, then that's CAP's business.

As an example, a member spouting off about politics...go ahead and enjoy.  If reading it offends you, you have plenty of options to mute/block such content yourself.  That same member puts themselves obviously in a CAP uniform in their profile pic, and you have an implied endorsement, and a simple request to change your profile pic is about as far as it should go.

I can also remember an instance that I was not involved in where a squadron commander was complaining about how much of a waste of time a "command call" meeting was while the Wing Commander was speaking, with a picture of the Wing King to boot.  IIRC, he received some...counselling...on decorum.

Eclipse

Quote from: JeffDG on January 15, 2019, 04:34:06 PM
That same member puts themselves obviously in a CAP uniform in their profile pic, and you have an implied endorsement, and a simple request to change your profile pic is about as far as it should go.

Do you though?  Where's the line?

Is the mere awareness of affiliation with a given organization enough to imply endorsement of opinions by that same org?

Does listing your employer on Linked-In, along with 10 others, mean your post about "Which pop tart is best?" (frosted cinnamon, hands down)
imply that the plumbing contractor you work for feels the same?

Does a mere profile photo in uniform mean that anything you say on a given site = that service's opinion?

(This is separate from whether the org prefers you don't, or that people will try to make hay with the employer or org for "reasons".)

To some extent the through line on this would be that if you want to espouse "opinions", you should not be seen in public (IRL or online)
affiliated with any org that doesn't want the heat (which, BTW, law, regs, or otherwise, is what is referred to as "common sense").

"That Others May Zoom"

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: deepblue1947 on January 15, 2019, 05:14:44 AM
etodd, I think you may have been right in your initial post of where this might go. 

Totally.

Quote from: CAP9907 on January 15, 2019, 08:25:31 AM
ok, I am going to call this 'asked and answered' with thanks to Ned for the assist.

Indeed.

Quote from: JeffDG on January 15, 2019, 04:30:05 PM
Naked selfies tends to impact order and discipline in a public primary/secondary school.  I would guess that a professor at a public university, however, would be free to post all the nasty selfies he/she wanted to without fear of termination.

Incorrect. You don't have a right to employment at the public institution; you have the right not to be legally punished/persecuted.


We're on the subject now of Constitutional rights vs. CAP policy. I feel like I'm back on my Facebook feed. We should lock this one.


deepblue1947

I am truly sorry that this thread has taken the direction it has.  I really regret posting my question.

DB

JeffDG

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 15, 2019, 06:28:36 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 15, 2019, 04:30:05 PM
Naked selfies tends to impact order and discipline in a public primary/secondary school.  I would guess that a professor at a public university, however, would be free to post all the nasty selfies he/she wanted to without fear of termination.

Incorrect. You don't have a right to employment at the public institution; you have the right not to be legally punished/persecuted.
Actually, no.

You have the right to the government not punishing you for your speech.  If that punishment is termination of your employment, that's also illegal for the government to do.

Go ahead and read Pickering v Board of Education if you disagree.  Teacher sent a letter to the editor criticizing the school board for their decisions.  In a private context, a company would be completely free to dismiss for that.  School Board did so, the 9 men in black disagreed and ordered reinstatement.  This was somewhat narrowed by Garcetti v. Ceballos in 2006, but that only permits dismissal if a teacher speaks as part of their job duties (ie. they do so in the classroom).

Eclipse

Quote from: deepblue1947 on January 15, 2019, 07:34:02 PM
I am truly sorry that this thread has taken the direction it has.  I really regret posting my question.

?

A factual and respectful discussion of the actual issue?

"That Others May Zoom"

husker



Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2019, 10:43:36 PM
FWIW, the only way to "win" Social Media is not to play.


Eclipse is always good for a War Games quote. 

https://youtu.be/6DGNZnfKYnU

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Michael Long, Lt Col CAP
Deputy Director, National Emergency Services Academy
nesa.cap.gov
mlong (at) nesa.cap.gov