Back to Publications Index
Splatter the Chatter - Pt. II
How to Control Employee Gossip in Internet "Chat Rooms"
by Peter Kelman, Esquire
This Article appeared in substantially the same form in Mass HighTech, October 25, 1999.
A better way to prevent publication of such statements is to include a provision in your employee nondisclosure agreement and in your company's policies and procedures manual that describes a process for posting statements on the Internet. An example of such a provision is:
To ensure that the Company delivers a consistent message about its products, services and operations to the public, and further in recognition that even positive statements may have a detrimental effect on the Company in certain securities transactions and other contexts, Employee agrees that any statement about the Company which employee creates, publishes or posts during employee's term of employment and for six month thereafter, on any media accessible by the public, including, but not limited to electronic bulletin boards and web-based chat rooms, shall first be reviewed and approved by an officer of the Company before it is released in the public domain.
Such a provision does not prohibit an employee from posting statements; it merely provides a procedure whereby such statements are reviewed, for legitimate business interests, before being published. Courts have long recognized the right of an employer to restrict the flow of company information in the context of non-disclosure agreements and reasonable non-competition agreements. A public employer, (a company funded in whole or in part by taxpayer dollars, not necessarily a public company, whose stock trades on an open market), however, is subject to First Amendment constraints which may limit its ability to enforce such an agreement. An analysis of whether an employee can make public statements about a public employer is fact-intensive and goes well beyond the scope of this article.
If an employee posts a statement about the company in the public domain, the presence of this provision should make your job much easier to convince an ISP to remove the message. ISPs are typically reluctant to remove a message based on it "defamatory nature," which requires an ISP to enter into a judgment about the truth of the particular statement. However, if you can demonstrate that a statement is in clear violation of a company restriction on such statements, an ISP will be more willing to remove the statement. By extending the prohibition for a period of time after an employee leaves the company, you will have a strong argument for removal of a message posted by the prolific, ubiquitous web author "exemployee."
1999, Peter Kelman. All rights reserved.