<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>Dickinson Mackaman Tyler &amp; Hagen PC » Social Networking Law Blog</title>
	<link>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com</link>
	<description>Des Moines, Iowa Law Firm</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 17:33:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.1.1" -->

	<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog" /><feedburner:info uri="dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
		<title>Case against NJ woman charged with identity theft via Facebook will go forward</title>
		<description>After setting up a fake Facebook profile for her ex, Dana Thornton finds herself fighting a fourth-degree identity theft charge in New Jersey courts.  Thornton tried to get the case dismissed because the statute makes no mention of electronic communications.  The judge didn't buy the argument, and on Wednesday, ruled the case will go forward.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/CBUCCeX1rIM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/CBUCCeX1rIM/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2011/11/case-against-nj-woman-charged-with-identity-theft-via-facebook-will-go-forward/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Missouri law bans certain teacher/student online communications</title>
		<description>Missouri has just passed a law prohibiting certain online communications between teachers and students.  The Amy Hestir Student Protection Action aims to protect students from sexual abuse, but controvery surrounds a provision in the law reaching student and teacher social media usage and online activity.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/mIHf_woYRSQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/mIHf_woYRSQ/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2011/08/missouri-law-bans-certain-teacherstudent-online-communications/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>NLRB continues aggressive response to employers’ social media policies it seems overbroad</title>
		<description>The National Labor Relations Board has been increasingly involved in Facebook firings, and recently issued two more complaints against employers that fired employees in response to the employees’ Facebook posts.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/8scFqq3gLFM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/8scFqq3gLFM/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2011/06/nlrb-continues-aggressive-response-to-employers-social-media-policies-it-seems-overbroad/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Update, update, update your document retention policies!</title>
		<description>Because more and more companies have become active on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, it is wise to review or update document retention polices to ensure the scope will cover such social media activity.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/2_-pkSi4igA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/2_-pkSi4igA/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2011/02/update-update-update-your-document-retention-policies/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Social media policies for employers: A few notes on the NLRA</title>
		<description>Many private employers don’t realize Section 7 of the NLRA protects the rights of all employees, regardless of union status, to engage in protected “concerted activities,” such as discussing wages, work conditions, and other terms of employment.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/XuJ66O7aC9I" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/XuJ66O7aC9I/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2010/12/social-media-policies-for-employers-a-few-notes-on-the-nlra/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>NLRA may protect your employees’ Facebook rants (regardless of union status!)</title>
		<description>The National Labor Relations Board's Hartford regional office recently accused an employer of engaging in unfair labor practices when the company fired an employee who complained about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/LCcvYC7kyWE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/LCcvYC7kyWE/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2010/12/nlra-may-protect-your-employees-facebook-rants-regardless-of-union-status/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Final GINA regulations (finally!) published: Social media &amp; employer acquisition of genetic info</title>
		<description>The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission today (finally!) issued final regulations implementing Title II (the employment provisions) of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA).&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/7dmj24IpNxY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/7dmj24IpNxY/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2010/11/final-gina-regulations-finally-published-social-media-employer-acquisition-of-genetic-info/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>US Supreme Court issues opinion in Quon sexting case</title>
		<description>The United States Supreme Court ruled today that a public employer’s search of sexually explicit text messages on a police officer’s employer-issued pager did not constitute an illegal invasion of privacy.  The Court overturned the Ninth Circuit, which had determined the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages and that the city’s search was not reasonable.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/1iW1OzDdmY8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/1iW1OzDdmY8/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2010/06/us-supreme-court-issues-opinion-in-quon-sexting-case/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Final GINA regs delayed: GINA &amp; social media considerations for employers</title>
		<description>With respect to social media issues specifically, GINA makes the mere acquisition of genetic information illegal. Because the Act broadly defines the term “genetic information” (including even medical conditions of family members), checking out an employee’s or applicant’s Facebook profile could easily result in a violation.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/0Yq98ZjpeO0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/0Yq98ZjpeO0/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2010/06/final-gina-regs-delayed-gina-social-media-considerations-for-employers/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title>Potential employer liability for employee endorsements under FTC guidelines</title>
		<description>Under new FTC guidelines, an employer could be liable for online communications by its employee if the employee touts a product or service offered by his employer, but fails to make clear he works for the company he's promoting or "endorsing."&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~4/EI3XP1IGFUM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dickinson-law-social-networking-law-blog/~3/EI3XP1IGFUM/</link>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.dickinsonlaw.com/2010/05/potential-employer-liability-for-employee-endorsements-under-ftc-guidelines/</feedburner:origLink></item>
</channel>
</rss>

