Following a private meeting with town officials, community leaders, first responders and victims’ families last week in Newtown, Conn., NASCAR, Swan Racing and Waltrip announced that the No. 30 Lean1 Swan Racing Toyota will instead garner the No. 26 Sandy Hook School Support Fund Toyota. Waltrip’s ride for the Daytona 500 (Sunday, Feb. 24 1 p.m. ET on FOX) will honor the 26 victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School and prominently feature a call-to-action decal encouraging the NASCAR community to make $10 donations by texting NEWTOWN to 80888.

The Sandy Hook School Support Fund, established jointly by United Way of Western Connecticut and Newtown Savings Bank, supports the healing process for the broader Newtown community including children, teachers, first responders, families, residents, mental health professionals, counselors and others, following the tragic events that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December. One hundred percent of the funds raised for the Sandy Hook School Support Fund go to meet the needs of the Newtown community.

“Americans everywhere are heartbroken about the tragedy in Newtown and Swan Racing is proud to join NASCAR and the United Way of Western Connecticut to help the community move forward,” said Swan Racing owner Brandon Davis.

In addition to piloting the No. 26 Newtown car in the Great American Race, Waltrip confirmed today that all three Michael Waltrip Racing entries will run the “text NEWTOWN to 80888” decal for the Daytona 500.

“Driving the No. 26 Sandy Hook School Support Fund Toyota is like nothing I have ever been part of in my NASCAR career,” Waltrip said. “It will be an emotional week knowing that we have the potential to do so much good for the Newtown community. I’m racing for a reason.”

NASCAR Chairman and CEO Brian France also announced today that he and his wife Amy would personally kick off the NASCAR industry support with a $50,000 donation that will be matched by The NASCAR Foundation, a 501(c) (3) non-profit that embodies the compassion of the NASCAR family and its commitment to serving communities.

“Being in Newtown last week and delivering a moment of happiness to that community was unlike anything I’ve ever experienced,” said France. “Looking out at a room of smiling faces amidst the aftermath of a horrible tragedy was very powerful. It hit me that the NASCAR industry and our passionate fan base have an unbelievable opportunity to rally around this cause and make a huge difference for a community in need. I am excited to witness firsthand the NASCAR community’s embrace and support of the Sandy Hook School Support Fund.”

The Sandy Hook School Support Fund recently announced in cooperation with the Newtown Rotary Club Foundation that funds are available to help with the immediate financial and mental health needs for people impacted by the tragic events of Dec. 14.

“One thing I can tell you for sure, is that there will be a whole lot of people in Sandy Hook and Newtown rooting for Michael and the No 26 car,” said Sandy Hook Fire Chief Bill Halstead. “It will be something positive to rally around, and there will be smiles on faces that haven’t smiled in quite a while.”

The NASCAR community can contribute to the Sandy Hook School Support Fund by texting NEWTOWN to 80888. For fans without short-code texting plans with their wireless carriers, there are two additional opportunities to donate. Donations can also be made online at newtown.uwwesternct.org or by mail to:

Sandy Hook School Support Fund
c/o Newtown Savings Bank
39 Main Street, Newtown, CT, 06470

About NASCAR

The National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. (NASCAR) is the sanctioning body for the No. 1 form of motorsports in the United States. NASCAR consists of three national series (the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, NASCAR Nationwide Series, and NASCAR Camping World Truck Series), four regional series, one local grassroots series, three international series and GRAND-AM Road Racing and the American Le Mans Series, both known for competition on road courses. Based in Daytona Beach, Fla., with offices in eight cities across North America, NASCAR sanctions more than 1,200 races in more than 30 U.S. states, Canada, Mexico and Europe. The next NASCAR Sprint Cup Series race will be The Sprint Unlimited at Daytona on Feb. 16 at 8 p.m. on FOX. For more information, visit www.nascar.com and follow NASCAR at www.facebook.com/NASCAR and Twitter: @NASCAR.

Related articles

• Waltrip’s 500 car carries Sandy Hook scheme
• Waltrip Will Honor Sandy Hook With #26 Toyota In Daytona 500
• NASCAR, Waltrip honor Sandy Hook at Daytona 500
• NASCAR, Waltrip honor Sandy Hook at Daytona 500
• Daytona 500: Michael Waltrip’s No. 26 for Sandy Hook

PR Observations from the Lance Armstrong interview with Oprah Winfrey

 Emotionless admission: Lance Armstrong admitted that he used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) to win each of his seven Tour de France championships.  He referred to himself as a flawed man and admitted to lying.  However, he did so without much emotion or contrition, which made him less believable to many viewers.

Lack of candor I: Armstrong could not or would not explain why he decided to conduct the interview.  Early in the interview Oprah Winfrey asked, “Why now?”

Armstrong: “That’s the best question, it’s the most logical question. I don’t know that I have a great answer.  I’ll start by saying this is too late, it’s too late probably for most people and that’s my fault.  I view this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot if times.”

Unfortunately, Oprah left this question and didn’t do a sufficient job following up.  Clearly there must have been something that motivated Armstrong to call Oprah and to declare to the world that he’d lied – and lied a lot.

Lack of candor II: Armstrong refused to say whether or not Betsy Andreu was being truthful when she claims to have witnessed him admit to a doctor at an Indianapolis hospital that he was doping.

Oprah: “Was Betsy telling the truth?”

Armstrong: “Um, I’m not going to take that on. I’m laying down on that one.

Oprah: Was Betsy lying?

“I’m, I’m just not…I’m gonna put that one down.”

Again, Oprah allowed Armstrong to transition to a different subject without pressing him as to why he couldn’t or wouldn’t answer the question.

Bizarre moment: The Betsy Andreu segment led to the most bizarre moment in the interview.  Oprah asked about the phone call Armstrong made to Andreu and he found it quite important to make the point that he never called her fat. He said, “I called you crazy, I called you a bitch, I called you all these things but I never called you fat.”  Given all the terrible things he’s admitted to doing, including baseless lawsuits, this point seemed trivial to say the least.

Urge to split hairs: The most troubling moment in the interview was when Armstrong reverted back to the “technical” lies, like when asked if he retroactively failed six consecutive tests from 1999 to 2005.  Armstrong clearly struggled with this answer.

Oprah: “You said time and again in dozens of interviews that you’ve never failed a test.   Do you have a different answer today?”

Armstrong: “Um, no. I mean I never…I didn’t fail a test.  Were there some stuff…stuff that’s retroactively tested and..so, technically yes those were retroactively – I failed those.”

Missed opportunity:  Armstrong would have fared much better if he had some positive steps to announce. Those steps could have been a commitment to actively work with governing bodies to help identify the use of PEDS or even a plan to meet with everyone in cycling that he hurt to personally apologize.

Oprah out of her element: This type of hard news format did not mesh well with Oprah’s interviewing skills. Oprah too often failed to follow up at key moments of Armstrong’s answers leaving too many open questions.

Production mistake: OWNTV made a mistake by not producing a tight, riveting 30-minute interview segment.  The broadcast company would have done better to feature a well-produced single night package and then post the full interview on OWNTV.com.

Five key elements to look for in his interview with Oprah Winfrey

In a crisis situation people want to know what happened, why it happened and what is going to be done to fix it.   Lance Armstrong has taped a long and apparently in-depth interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which he admits to the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).   If Armstrong is to begin to repair his reputation he most assuredly needed to open up to Winfrey and explain what happened, why it happened and what he will do to make amends.

Five essential elements to look for in the Armstrong interview are:

1. Complete information – The only way Armstrong can hope to salvage any bit of credibility is to fully answer any and all questions.  There must be no equivocation or hiding behind legalese at this juncture. Some media reports say Armstrong made a “partial confession” to Winfrey.  If so, that will not sit well. The public is expecting an honest and direct testimony from Armstrong.  Anything less will further damage what is left of his reputation.
2. Motivation for confession – Armstrong should explain, why, after more than a decade of abject defiance, he is now coming clean.  He has already been stripped of his Tour de France titles, lost his sponsors, and stepped down as chairman of his Livestrong Foundation. In fact, a confession could mean more legal and financial troubles for him. Armstrong should provide a clear explanation as to exactly what led to the Oprah interview.
3. Repairing the damage – Armstrong has disgraced the Tour de France, USA Cycling and his sponsors, including the U.S. Postal Service and Livestrong. It is imperative that Armstrong address the damage he has caused and how he intends to repair it.  Writing checks is not the solution if he is to emerge from this crisis with an improved reputation. He should announce a concrete plan for how he will repair the damage – perhaps something along the lines of collaborating with USA Cycling to improve the system of PED detection.
4. Contrition – What Armstrong says is important; How he says it will determine if anyone believes him.  Contrition is most effectively expressed by tone, body language and eye contact.  All three elements should naturally flow from Armstrong if he is to be convincing.
5. Looking forward – Armstrong, after providing a full account of what happened and why, should explain in detail what he will be doing going forward and how he will regain the public’s trust.  His damaged reputation hurts the good efforts of Livestrong and any other meaningful projects on which has advocated or will advocate in the future.  We live in a remarkably forgiving society. Armstrong has an opportunity to rebuild his reputation and to again be both an opinion leader and an agent for positive social change.

The Armstrong interview, titled “Oprah and Lance Armstrong: The World Exclusive” will air in two parts on Winfrey’s OWN network.  Part one will be Thursday at 9 p.m. and part two will air Friday at 9 p.m.

Ramsey Poston is president of Tuckahoe Strategies a public relations firm that specializes in crisis communications.

Article first published as Lance Armstrong’s Chance to Save His Reputation on Technorati.

Related articles

• Lance Armstrong may not be done confessing after Oprah Winfrey interview
• You: Oprah Winfrey Discusses Lance Armstrong’s Confession on CBS

An Evaluation of Social Media Practice in NASCAR

Joe Gibbs Racing, Hendrick Motorsports, and Jimmie Johnson are among NASCAR’s strongest and most engaging users of social media, a new social media study of the NASCAR industry finds.

The study – conducted by Tuckahoe Strategies, a strategic communications firm – scored drivers, teams and select NASCAR sponsors and partners on a 20-point scale.   Joe Gibbs Racing topped the charts with a Social Media Score of 15 points, Hendrick trailed by one point at 14 points and Johnson scored 13 points.

Gibbs’ online accounts comprise one of the broadest social media strategies for reaching fans of the sport.  The team site, www.joegibbsracing.com, is up to date with timely features, and the homepage points to six social media platforms, including a mobile app for iPhone, Blackberry or Droid.  The team maintains active social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, Instagram and FourSquare.  Hendrick also has an active and diverse menu of social media platforms including a mobile app.  Gibbs’ social media score bested Hendrick’s by a single point because of its slightly more effective home page promotion of its social media platforms.

“Some drivers, teams and sponsors in the NASCAR industry are taking steps to reach and engage larger audiences using social media, while others are missing opportunities,” said Tuckahoe Strategies president Ramsey Poston.

Expanding NASCAR’S Reach Across Platforms

Johnson is the most comprehensive user of social media among drivers.  He reaches his audience on a broad array of platforms including: Facebook, 657,062 page likes; Twitter, 348,402 followers; YouTube, 265 subscribers; and Instagram, with an industry-leading 60,618 followers. Johnson’s social media reach (the sum of all social media followers across platforms) is 1,066,347. This veritable  “media machine” has a following larger than the circulation of the Los Angeles Times, which is the fourth largest newspaper in the country.

The sport’s largest audience holder and content curator across the board is NASCAR.  The sanctioning body regained a voice and a direct connection to its fan base this year after repossessing control of its online assets in a January 2012 agreement with Turner Sports Interactive.  NASCAR’s total social media reach is an astronomical 5,044,070, more than double the daily circulation of the largest U.S. newspaper, The Wall Street Journal. In fact, NASCAR commands the industry’s top position in terms of audience on Facebook likes (3,239,504), Twitter followers (841,027) and YouTube subscribers (5,430).  The sanctioning body also has 1,420 followers on Pinterest and a staggering 956,689 circles on Google+.

NASCAR’s Social Media Score Leaders: Survey Details

The Tuckahoe Strategies survey was conducted the week of December 24 and captured online holiday updates and fan engagement.  Social media scores were based on online presence, number of social platforms activated and timeliness of updates.  Social media reach was not a factor in the Social Media Score because the size of an audience can be influenced by many factors including level of popularity and “fake” followers such as automated bots.  (Virtually all accounts have some level of fake followers.)

“Too often there is an over-emphasis on audience size.  It’s far more important to have a quality, engaged following than just quantity,” said Poston.

Johnson, Marcos Ambrose (12 points), Kyle Busch (12), Jeff Gordon (11) and Danica Patrick (11) scored highest among 45 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series drivers, while Gibbs, Hendrick, Penske (12), Robby Gordon Motorsports (12) and Roush Fenway (12) collected the top scores among 30 team owners. Among industry sponsors and partners, high scores were awarded to Ford Racing (12), NASCAR (11), SpeedTV (10), Toyota (8) and Sunoco (7). (NASCAR was grouped with sponsors and partners.)

The team with the broadest social media reach is Roush Fenway Racing, with an audience of 976,755.  The vast majority of this audience engages with the team’s Google+ account, which includes 912,961 “circles.”  Both Hendrick and Stewart-Haas Racing are more balanced, actively utilizing a broad spectrum of platforms to reach their fans.  Hendrick’s total audience is 588,889 of which 454,720 are Facebook fans, 128,929 are Twitter followers, 1,531 are YouTube subscribers logging 466,071 views, and 3,709 are Pinterest followers.

The bulk of Stewart-Haas Racing’s total social media audience of 404,688 can be found on Facebook (237,107 likes), but the team also is active on Twitter (91,398 followers), YouTube (453 subscribers), Pinterest (1,442 followers) and Google+ (74,288 circles).

Dale Earnhardt Jr. scored nine 9 points in the study placing him in the middle of the pack.  However, NASCAR’s most popular driver holds the single largest audience for a driver at 1,637,697.  About 90% of Earnhardt’s audience is concentrated on one platform, his Facebook page, which accounts for 1,470,212 likes.  Earnhardt also has a robust YouTube channel with 1,630 subscribers and 610,714 views. Earnhardt maintains a Pinterest account that includes 231 followers and 124 pins, but it is difficult to find without any promotion from the homepage. Earnhardt does have a Twitter account with 165,855 “followers.” It is dormant so far, however, with zero tweets.

“The goal for each individual and organization should be to build and activate its own ‘media machine’ by using the digital platform.  All the tools are easily available and NASCAR is taking steps to help the industry expand its online presence,” said Poston.

“Drivers, teams and sponsors are best off having a balanced approach to their online strategy,” said Poston.  “Homepages should continue to be the primary hub of information.  Social media platforms should be access points to reach and engage fans (and customers) and should ideally include photo and video sharing platforms for maximum exposure.

“A well thought out online plan and content calendar can help drivers, teams and sponsors build a meaningful audience, which in turn provides a much better opportunity to control the message, improve opportunities to sell merchandise and, for teams and drivers, attract new sponsors,” said Poston.

Many in the sport can easily improve their social media scores by making simple updates to their websites and expanding their use of social media platforms. Many sites fail to include homepage buttons linking to their full menu of social media platforms. Most sites just include Facebook and Twitter buttons but often fail to include YouTube, Pinterest or Instagram accounts on the website homepage.  (Disclaimer: There may be some social media platforms not scored by the study because they were not identified on homepages or in our extensive search.)

Another common misstep throughout the industry is a lack of shareable content.  NASCAR is a photo- and video-rich sport with an avid fan base.   Teams, drivers and sponsors would do well to utilize photo-sharing platforms, such as Instagram and Pinterest, and video sharing services such as YouTube or Vimeo.  A number of industry websites feature terrific photo and video galleries but they are isolated on the site and not easily shareable.

While almost every industry entity evaluated could take steps to improve their position, Goodyear stood out for its lack of any social media presence at all.  In fact, one can find virtually no mention of NASCAR at all on its online properties. There is no mention of NASCAR on Goodyear.com and no dedicated Facebook page or Twitter account.

By contrast, NASCAR’s fuel supplier, Sunoco, has an active, racing-related Facebook page with nearly 1.2 million likes and an active Twitter account with over 8,000 followers. Sunoco is successfully marketing its NASCAR partnership on social media platforms, in turn better positioning its own corporate brand. NASCAR title sponsor, Sprint, also is expanding the reach of its corporate brand through its NASCAR-related social media presence. Sprint is active on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube via its brand ambassador campaign, Miss Sprint Cup, with a social media reach of more than 1.3 million.

Tuckahoe Strategies is a full service communications company providing brand building, public relations services, crisis management and litigation communications.  Poston has worked in the sports industry for over ten years as a communications expert. 

Social Media Scores in the NASCAR Industry

Social media score –

Based on online presence, number of social platforms activated and timeliness of updates. Highest score possible is 20. Survey data by Tuckahoe Strategies. All rights reserved.

Social Media Reach

Audience figures are compiled by adding Facebook “Likes”; Twitter followers; YouTube subscribers; Pinterest followers; Instagram followers, Google+ Circles. Survey data by Tuckahoe Strategies. All rights reserved.

Related articles

• NASCAR revamps and relaunches official website
• NASCAR digital moving to Charlotte hub

Survey conducted week of Dec. 24, 2012.  Based on online presence, number of social platforms activated and timeliness of updates. Highest score possible is 20.  Survey data by Tuckahoe Strategies. All rights reserved.

Survey conducted week of Dec. 24, 2012.  Figures compiled by adding Facebook likes, Twitter followers, YouTube subscribers, Pinterest followers, Instagram followers, and Google+ Circles. Survey data by Tuckahoe Strategies. All rights reserved.

Hockey fans and others are outraged at the idea that they are being psychologically examined and tested to help the NHL break the players union.  The reality is that public opinion research is used everyday on virtually every issue – it’s an essential part of any communications strategy.  Given that Bettman and the NHL leadership are not well liked and have their share of communications problems, public opinion research makes sense.

As someone who has worked in electoral politics, labor disputes and professional sports, I understand the value of public opinion research.   In any labor dispute, both sides are eager to sway public opinion in their favor.  As crass as it may sound, focus groups are an import part of understanding what will influence fans and key audiences. Make no mistake, the NHLPA is likely testing its messages to determine how best to sway the fans – if not, they are flying blind.

Focus groups help organizations to gain a qualitative view of an issue.  Typically, they produce information and insight that can’t easily be gained without a group discussion.  Focus groups are particularly helpful in developing context, language and messaging. The process helps organizations determine a strategic “path to victory.”

Focus groups are also the beginning of the research process.  I suspect the NHL/Luntz team held or is in the process of holding focus groups in several other hockey cities to test the same ideas. The next likely step is qualitative research where the Luntz team will use much of the focus group data in a national survey.  The survey will help to fine tune the messages and lead to the development of a comprehensive communications plan.

There are several reasons to win the PR war – first and foremost is leverage.  If either side can gain public relations momentum among the fans and media then it strengthens its hand at the negotiating table.  We saw this with the NFL replacement referees; once public opinion collapsed on the NFL, it had no choice but to quickly get a new deal done with the NFL Referee Association.

Another reason to win the PR war is to raise the comfort level among allies.  In the case of the NHL, that would be the teams, sponsors and broadcast partners. A strong, logical message communicated through the media will help to appease these critical audiences – for a while.

As for the damage the leak has caused the NHL and commissioner Bettman, remains to be seen. However, the NHLPA is most assuredly reviewing the focus group materials very closely.  In particular a mock speech in which Luntz, acting as an NHL executive, apparently tested a consolatory message, saying, “Maybe we asked for too much at first, but we’re willing to give. The NHLPA has to be willing to give as well, if we’re going to give the fans back their hockey. There’s no way we’re going to do this without both sides bringing something to the table.”  This may be the blood in the water the NHLPA needs to be even more aggressive at the negotiating table.

Virtually every client worries about research data being leaked but it rarely happens. I have participated in many focus groups in the same Bethesda,Md facility as Luntz held his NHL discussions.  I’ve held focus groups there on everything from healthcare issues to transportation taxes without negative fallout.  However, this instance was an exception and raises the question as to whether Luntz made a tactical error by holding this particular session so close to Washington, D.C., a politically savvy market where Luntz is recognizable and where hockey fans are passionate.

Another lesson learned is the accessibility of cell phone cameras during the focus group.  How didn’t Luntz or someone from his team see that the documents were being photographed?  I suspect going forward that Luntz and other pollsters may ask that cell phones remain turned off and kept out of sight during focus group sessions.

This colum was originally published by Technorati: http://technorati.com/sports/article/frank-luntz-and-the-mind-of/

Related articles

• Frank Luntz ‘Shaping’ Opinion For NHL Owners Against Union
• What Frank Luntz Taught the NHL About Winning Back Hockey Fans
• NHL lockout 2012: Frank Luntz responds after focus group details leak

Jim Donnan charged in Ponzi scheme

By KATE BRUMBACK,Updated 9:44 a.m., Thursday, August 16, 2012

 Georgia football coach Jim Donnan is accused of orchestrating an $80 million Ponzi scheme, using his own prominence to get high-profile college coaches and former players to invest, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said Thursday.

Donnan and business partner Gregory Crabtree, of Proctorville, Ohio, convinced investors to pour millions of dollars into a business they said was unique and profitable with huge potential and little risk, said William P. Hicks, associate director of the SEC’s Atlanta office.

Donnan and Crabtree sold investments in West Virginia-based retail liquidation company GLC Limited and promised high rates of return that didn’t materialize, federal regulators said. The pair raised about $80 million from nearly 100 investors, but only about $12 million of that was used to buy merchandise for liquidation, the SEC said.

Donnan’s attorney has previously acknowledged the former coach was paid lucrative commissions, but he said Donnan believed he was being paid from legitimate profits earned by the company.

Donnan was the coach at Marshall University from 1990 through 1995 and at Georgia from 1996-2000 and later became an ESPN analyst.

Among the coaches Donnan helped attract were Texas State football coach Dennis Franchione; Virginia Tech football coach Frank Beamer; ex-Dallas Cowboys coach Barry Switzer and Texas Tech football coach Tommy Tuberville.

Tuckahoe Strategies’ Quick Crisis Analysis:

The Jim Donnan issue has been brewing for about a year.  Presumably all those connected to him have already conducted internal investigations to determine any knowledge of involvement in the scheme – if not they need to do so NOW.  Below is Tuckahoe Strategies’ quick crisis analysis:

Jim Donnan – Risk Factor = HIGH.  Faces serious allegations.  Neither he nor his attorneys are responding to media questions.  According to reports, his attorney admitted to being paid lucrative commissions but assumed they were legitimate profits.  If this is the case, then he should take steps now to clear his name.

ESPN – Risk Factor = LOW-to-HIGH. ESPN executives by now should have gathered the facts to determine whom, if anyone knew about the alleged scheme and what was done about it.  Were any ESPN executives involved in the scheme?  Did Donnan use his position at ESPN to advance the scheme?   ESPN’s risk is probably LOW but could change if evidence surfaces that points to any knowledge or involvement in the scheme.  A statement should be drafted and approved for use upon request.   Based on the facts, ESPN needs to assess its relationship with Donnan if it hasn’t already done so.

Marshall University – Risk Factor = MEDIUM-to-HIGH. The company in which Donnan and his partner sold investments is located in West Virginia as is Marshall.  Investigators have likely already combed through any connections between Donnan and Marshall and the media won’t be far behind.  Marshall’s risk factor is medium as a result of the West Virginia connection.  Marshall execs should move quickly to make sure they know what the Feds know – then develop a plan for how to handle.

University of Georgia – Risk Factor = LOW-to-HIGH.  UGA administrators should be well engaged in the process of interviewing the Athletic Director and others to know anything and everything they need to know before investigators and media come a knocking.

College Football Coaches Tommy Tuberville (Texas Tech), Frank Beamer (VaTech), Dennis Franchione (Texas State) and ex-Dallas Cowboys coach Barry Switzer – Risk Factor = LOW-to-HIGH.  Donnan reportedly recruited these high profile coaches to invest in the company.  Where they part of the alleged scheme or are they victims?  Each of them should be preparing for very specific questions.  They should be speaking to their employers and their attorneys for guidance.

 ###

Related articles

• Ex-UGA coach Jim Donnan charged in Ponzi scheme
• Former Bulldogs coach Donnan facing charges in $80 million Ponzi scheme
• Ex-UGA coach reaches bankruptcy settlement

Malcolm Harris aka @destructuremal

Twitter ordered to turn over information

A New York court yesterday ordered Twitter to turn over three months’ worth of a defendant’s tweets.  The defendant, Malcolm Harris (@destructuremal), was arrested in October 1, 2011 for disorderly conduct when he participated in a march on the Brooklyn Bridge as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. was thoughtful and careful about his ruling in light of the changing landscape of electronic communications. He acknowledged that statutes “can never keep up with technology,” and that in some cases “judges have no understanding of the technology themselves.”  Sciarrino even reached as far back as the founding fathers Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson whom he assumed would have been Twitter fans.

However, Sciarrino also makes the point that there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy for tweets that the user has made public. It is the act of tweeting or disseminating communications to the public that controls.”   He then offered up this analogy:

Consider the following: a man walks to his window, opens the window, and screams down to a young lady, “I’m sorry I hit you, please come back upstairs.” At trial, the People call a person who was walking across the street at the time this occurred. The prosecutor asks, “What did the defendant yell?” Clearly the answer is relevant and the witness could be compelled to testify. Well today, the street is an online, information superhighway, and the witnesses can be the third party providers like Twitter, Facebook, Instragram, Pinterest, or the next hot social media application.

In short, what you say matters and you can be held accountable for what you say publicly.  Or to quote Judge Sciarrino, “What you give to the public belongs to the public. What you keep to yourself belongs only to you.”

Below Sciarrino’s concluding remarks in the ruling, which are quite insightful and underscore the change in communications we are experiencing.

 Conclusion:

In dealing with social media issues, judges are asked to make decisions based on statutes that can never keep up with technology. In some cases, those same judges have no understanding of the technology themselves (Stephanie Rabiner, Esq., Technologist, Do Judges Really Understand Social Media? http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2012/05/do-judges-really-understand-social-media.html [May 9, 2012]).

Judges must then do what they have always done – balance the arguments on the scales of justice. They must weigh the interests of society against the inalienable rights of the individual who gave away some rights when entering into the social contract that created our government and the laws that we have agreed to follow.

Therefore, while the law regarding social media is clearly still developing, it can neither be said that this court does not understand or appreciate the place that social media has in our society nor that it does not appreciate the importance of this ruling and future rulings of courts that may agree or disagree with this decision. In recent years, social media has become one of the most prominent methods of exercising free speech, particularly in countries that do not have very many freedoms at all.

The world of social media is evolving, as is the law around it. Society struggle with policies, whether they are between student and teacher (NYC Department of Education, NYC Department of Education Social Media Guidelines), or the right of a company to examine an applicant’s Facebook page as part of the interview process (Bill Chappell, State Approves Bill to Ban Employers From Seeking Facebook Login Info, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/10/150354579/state-approves-bill-to-ban-employers-from-seeking-facebook-login-info).

As the laws, rules and societal norms evolve and change with each new advance in technology, so too will the decisions of our courts. While the U.S. Constitution clearly did not take into consideration any tweets by our founding fathers, it is probably safe to assume that Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson would have loved to tweet their opinions as much as they loved to write for the newspapers of their day (sometimes under anonymous pseudonyms similar to today’s twitter user names). Those men, and countless soldiers in service to this nation, have risked their lives for our right to tweet or to post an article on Facebook; but that is not the same as arguing that those public tweets are protected. The Constitution gives you the right to post, but as numerous people have learned, there are still consequences for your public posts. What you give to the public belongs to the public. What you keep to yourself belongs only to you.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is granted in part and denied in part.  The court finds in favor of the People for all non-content information and content information in ECS and RCS from September 15, 2011 to December 30, 2011. However, ECS content information less than180 days old (tweeted on December 31, 2011) may only be disclosed pursuant to a search warrant, and the court decision in People v Harris is so modified.

For the entire ruling Click here. 

• Judge Rules Twitter Must Turn Over Occupy Protester’s Messages

  ---

• New York Judge Overrules Twitter: Tweets Broadcast to the Public ‘Belong to the Public’

  ---

Sullivan (l) and Dragas (r) in better times

The University of Virginia Board of Visitors ousting of former university president Teresa Sullivan was a public relations disaster. Like many crisis situations it was completely self-inflicted. The board has every right to hire and fire presidents but public opinion tends to turn quickly when such action is done behind closed doors and outside the normal procedures.

The leader of the board, Rector Helen Dragas is all about quick, “shoot from the hip” action. Meanwhile, Sullivan’s approach is more about incremental action and measured results.  It was this divergent style of management -and communications – that led to Sullivan’s firing.

In a prepared statement Dragas said, “We certainly never wished nor intended to ignite such a reaction from the community of trust and honor that we all love so dearly. You — our U-Va. family — deserved better from this board, and we have heard your concerns loud and clear.” However, Dragas was unwavering in her decision, “The Board of Visitors exists to make these kinds of judgments on behalf of all the constituencies of the university. . . . Simply put, we have the responsibility, on behalf of the entire community, to make these important and often difficult calls.”

Sullivan made a statement to the board in her own defense and the measured steps her administration has taken over the past two years. “I have been described as an incrementalist. It is true. Sweeping action may be gratifying and may create the aura of strong leadership, but its unintended consequences may lead to costs that are too high to bear.”

To the end, Sullivan maintained her position on the high road. Her comments, like her style for which she was fired, were thoughtful and measured.

While UVA succeeded in firing Sullivan it has lost a great deal of credibility among the university community.  Like most crises this will likely have a major negative affect on the university’s bottom line – an unintended consequence if you will. The alumni, students (future alumni) faculty and contributors are up in arms and demanding changes in the board.  Repairing confidence in the university community is essential for the board.  UVA’s reputation, ability to maintain contributions, attractiveness to incoming students and retaining its faculty all depend on how the university board controls the fallout.  This will require a well thought out strategic communications plan that addresses all audiences.

However, the focus going forward may be on Dragas who at this time may need to rely on her quick action just to survive.

Related articles

• U.Va. rector regrets campus turmoil but sticks by decision to oust president

  ---

• UVa faculty demand president’s reinstatement

  ---

• U.Va. board leader silent about ouster of president

  ---