Australian Public Servants Warned Against Liking Social Media Posts That Are Critical Of Government Policies
from the couldn't-happen-in-the-US-oh-wait dept
The Internet effectively turns everyone into a publisher, able to promulgate their ideas in a way that was not open to most people before. That's great for the democratization of media -- and terrible for governments that want to control the flow of information to citizens. The Australian government is particularly concerned about what its 150,000 public servants might say. It has issued a "guidance" document that "sets out factors for employees to consider in making decisions about whether and what to post". Here's why:
The speed and reach of online communication means that material posted online is available immediately to a wide audience. It can be difficult to delete and may be replicated endlessly. It may be sent to, or seen by, people the author never intended or expected would see it.
Deciding whether to make a particular comment or post certain material online is a matter of careful judgement rather than a simple formula. This guidance sets out factors for employees to consider in making decisions about whether and what to post.
That sounds reasonable enough. But it turns out that what the policy is really about is muzzling public employees, and stopping them from expressing or supporting views that disagree with government policies. As the Australian organization Digital Rights Watch summarizes:
The new guidelines warn that public servants would be in breach of code of conduct if they "liked" anti-government posts, privately emailing negative material or do not remove "nasty comments" about the government posted by others. The new policies apply to employees even if they use social media in a private capacity outside of work hours.
It also applies to your past employment with the Australian government -- and futures ones:
it is also worth bearing in mind that comments you make about an agency you've never worked in might be made public and taken into account if you apply for a job there later. Perhaps you haven't breached the Code, but you might have ruled yourself out for that job if the comment could reasonably call into question your capacity to work there impartially.
In other words, if you criticize any aspect of government policy, you'll never work in this town again. What's troubling about this move is not just that it is limiting people's freedom of speech -- something that the guidance freely admits:
The common law recognises an individual right to freedom of expression. This right is subject to limitations such as those imposed by the Public Service Act. In effect, the Code of Conduct operates to limit this right.
It's also that we have seen before where this kind of muzzling leads. Back in 2013, Techdirt wrote about similar rules for public servants in Canada, only rescinded last year. One of the most problematic areas was in the field of the environment, since it meant that even world-leading scientists were unable to point out publicly the evident flaws in the the Canadian government's climate policy. It looks like experts employed by the Australian government now find themselves similarly unable to be openly critical of the official line, no matter how misguided or dangerous it may be. There are also signs that a similar muzzling of scientists is starting to take place in the US. Despite unequivocal evidence of "drastic" climate change in a new, but unreleased US government report, emails obtained by the Guardian reveal the following:
Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference "weather extremes" instead.
At least they can still like social media posts that are critical of the US government's environmental policies. For now...
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, free speech, government employees, social media
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Civil servants discover the value of pseudonyms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Civil servants discover the value of pseudonyms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Civil servants discover the value of pseudonyms
Also covered in that same portion of the FAQ: You're not even supposed to post anonymously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Civil servants discover the value of pseudonyms
As far as I could find, Australia's Constitution doesn't expressly grand Freedom of Expression, but this goes beyond what I'd imagine such a system to allow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Civil servants discover the value of pseudonyms
Obviously, you're meant to make any changes you want and publish it as a handy PDF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Civil servants discover the value of pseudonyms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just NOPE!
Nope! Not anywhere, not anyone, not anytime, NOPE! Curtail their spending time doing that or anything not work related during work hours, fine. Off the clock, in their homes? FUCK RIGHT OFF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just NOPE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just NOPE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least the guide provides the best way out!
You won't be able to "like" posts, but you can share them without worries. Here's how:
So all everyone has to do is share it and use the same boilerplate ironic disclaimer. The granularity of these guidelines is just amazing! Do read the page for a good, sad laugh at their expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recently some of our national leaders have said some things publicly that generated a bit of confusion and outrage. Lo and behold an hour later I get a handful of emails reminding me of my obligation to refrain from expressing dissenting opinions in places that readers can link the "off the clock" me to the "on the clock" me. In a few years the restrictions are gone (for me anyway).
Anyway I'm more upset that the Big Boss is so regularly saying things that cause my Leadership to remind me of my limitations than I am at the fact they exist. The last guy sitting in the Office did not generate this level frustration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyway I'm more upset that the Big Boss is so regularly saying things that cause my Leadership to remind me of my limitations than I am at the fact they exist. The last guy sitting in the Office did not generate this level frustration.
I would say that the same argument brought up when private companies try this can be applied here. If you feel the need to gag you customers/employees such that they can't say anything critical of you, it's a pretty good indicator that you're doing a terrible job and/or stuff you shouldn't be doing in the first place.
The mere presence(implied or actually written out) of such a clause is an indicator that the job/service is a terrible one and the ones in charge of it know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Alternatively they are full blown authoritarians, and believe that the world behaves as they say. Anybody who disagrees is a heretic, and should be burnt at the stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like AUD does not have freedom of speech, like Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"'Impartiality' only works in our favor."
Perhaps you haven't breached the Code, but you might have ruled yourself out for that job if the comment could reasonably call into question your capacity to work there impartially.
So gushing about how awesome the agency is isn't enough to disqualify someone from a position there, but being critical of it can be. Because naturally an agency operates best when no-one questions the quality of the work they do and/or if what they're doing is a good thing.
They don't want 'impartial' workers, they want yes-men/women, people who do what they're told and only say nice things about the agencies they're working at, because of course having implied gag-clauses in any government job is the perfect way to attract new people to join.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Australia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rule of thumb when working for someone else
However, if you are ask to do something dodgy then you should stand up and be a man/women/it and say so and act accordingly.
If something really doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. Most of the Australian Government policy (irrespective of political leanings at the time) doesn't matter. But there are some areas where it does matter, and the worst part is that people who can do something, don't and the excuse is that they are just following policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
British-stlye Westminster System, not US System
All civil servants need to not just be neutral, but be seen to be neutral. Unfortunately, the political debate is so divisive and conflicted that "neutral" can be the new "criticism".
Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#Really?
This is why I operate under pseudonyms, on social networks. Privacy matters. It's a pretty bad idea to link with employers, recruiters, or co-workers on social media, so if you're making who you "really are" known on social media, you have to expect that to be a problem. I don't, so I won't be having to deal with something like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #Really?
An FAQ attached to the rules states that they apply to pseudonymous and anonymous posts too. It says that they do this because they've received complaints about employees pseudonymous and anonymous posts in the past that were somehow linked to those individuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weellll, this bunch of fascists can take a great big flying fuck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]