The fact is… we all make mistakes. The other fact is… we all have private lives.

What happens when things that were meant to only be shared with a small, close group of friends are mistakingly shared to a bigger audience than you intended? Would you be ready for the fall out?

One of the things that makes this country great is our freedom to say what we want, when we want. You should always feel secure in your legal right to speak your mind. But you also need to recognize that the things you say can have consequences. The following stories make a strong argument for filtering yourself online. The people in these stories had every right to think the way they did and say the things they said, but there is no question that each of them would have taken back their actions if given a second chance.

The next time you’re getting ready to share something online, remember these tales.

Are You Comfortable with the World Seeing That?

U.C.L.A. Student’s Video Rant Fuels Firestorm

In 2011, third-year U.C.L.A. student, Alexandra Wallace, took to YouTube to vent about what she perceived to be rude behavior in the school’s libraries by a particular racial group of students. Her rant, which lasted for nearly three minutes, included insensitive comments regarding people impacted by a natural disaster abroad, as well as a very offensive attempt at mocking the accents of some of her classmates at U.C.L.A.

By all accounts, Alexandra had fully intended to post the video publicly to YouTube. In fact, she opened the video by saying, “We know I’m not the most politically correct person, so don’t take this offensively…  I dont mean this towards any of my friends… I mean it towards random people I dont even know in the library…”

What Alexandra did not count on was the video going viral. She deleted the video shortly after posting it, but several copies of the video popped up quickly and amassed millions of views. Ultimately, she decided to leave the school after reportedly receiving dozens of death threats.

She later made it clear in a written apology that “[I] would do anything to take back my insensitive words.”

KitchenAid Employee Posts Insensitive Remarks

It isn’t rare for businesses of all sizes to have multiple users accessing a single social networking account. West Bend, in fact, has no fewer than five people with access to our various Twitter and Facebook accounts. The same goes for kitchen appliance maker, KitchenAid.

Following the presidential debate in Denver, a KitchenAid employee took to their personal Twitter account to post a snarky remark aimed at President Barack Obama. The only problem was… they actually posted to the KitchenAid Twitter account. Considering the tweet contained a reference to the President’s deceased grandmother, there was a swift, and understandable, backlash from the public.

KitchenAid deleted the post quickly, but the damage had already been done.

Doctors Planking on the Job

A group of doctors were disciplined after posting photos on Facebook of themselves engaging in the internet photo fad, planking. Planking consists of a person lying face down with their hands at their sides. The idea behind the fad is to plank in funny or odd places. With an entire hospital (including the helicopter pad) at their disposal, the doctors decided to have some fun. They snapped several photos throughout the building… all while on the clock.

While the act of planking itself is completely innocent, several people were offended that doctors would do something so silly while they were meant to be working. The doctors were disciplined, and the facility they worked at took a minor blow in the media due to the appearance that their professional staff were a bunch of pranksters.

Congressmen Anthony Weiner

“Last Friday night, I tweeted a photograph of myself that I intended to send as a direct message as part of a joke to a woman in Seattle.”

That’s pretty much all there is to know regarding the Anthony Weiner story. He inadvertently posted scandalous photos of himself for the entire world to see on Twitter. A single typo – using “@” when he meant to use “D” – cost this man his seat in the House of Representatives and caused irreparable damage to his reputation.

Freedom of Expression vs. Freedom from Backlash

There are two things in common with each of the stories shared above. For starters, none of them, as far as the law is concerned, did anything wrong. Each of their actions is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Legally, you’re allowed to make hurtful remarks, post goofy photos and even share pictures of yourself in your underwear.

The other thing they all had in common was that none of them had intended for their actions to gain so much notoriety. What’s interesting, though, is their attitude towards the backlash; none of them said anything like “I wish I had just done a better job limiting access to that post.” On the contrary, they all issued apologies that included something along the lines of “I wish I had never done this in the first place.” They wish they had never done these things in the first place because they came to fully understand how quickly things get spread online. The use of the phrase “going viral” is no coincidence.

Even if Alexandra Wallace had posted her video to YouTube privately so that only her friends could see, one of them still could have copied it and published it. If if the KitchenAid employee had successfully shared their tweet on their personal account, someone still could have traced it back to them. If the doctors only ever shared their planking photos via email with a few close colleagues, one of those people still could have forwarded it to others. And even if Anthony Weiner hadn’t mistakingly posted his photo publicly, the woman he was sending it to easily could have sold it to the tabloids.

The fact of the matter is, anything you say and do online could eventually make it out for the whole world to see. The idea of privacy online is a fallacy. Filter yourself. The future you (and in some cases, your employer) will be happy you did.

In all of these posts we try and preach the importance of appreciating your online privacy. For a while I thought we had been doing a pretty good job. And then I had an experience that changed everything. You can’t truly appreciate the fragility of your own online privacy until you experience Take This Lollipop.

The Perfect Facebook Application

If you have a Facebook account you absolutely must give this 2-minute demonstration a whirl. I promise you… you will not be sorry. If you have ever struggled to demonstrate to someone else the importance of online safety, just send them to this website. Enjoy.

You can read our entire Social Media Best Practices Guide, but in a nutshell, our recommendation is that any communication with a minor should be done 100% in public view. And because the popular social networks (Facebook and Twitter) have traditionally not offered a great way to prevent private communication, West Bend has promoted the idea that adults should just not connect with minors that aren’t family members.

With the launch of the Facebook Subscribe Button, this restrictive recommendation may now have an asterisk after it.

What is the Facebook Subscribe Button?

Most people use Facebook to connect with the people they know well: classmates, co-workers, family, and friends. The average user chooses to have their photos, videos, status updates, and profile information only visible to this select group of people… meaning the general public only sees the most basic contact information.

In the past, this meant that if someone wanted to interact with you and the things you share, they would have to send a request to become Facebook Friends, and you would then have to approve of that connection. Once this connection was approved both users could communicate publicly or privately with one another.

This process of sending and accepting Facebook Friend Requests has been in place since the very beginning, and it’s worked relatively well for most people. Unfortunately, it doesn’t address those people who have an interest in sharing their photos and messages with a broader audience. Enter Facebook Subscribe.

As the official Facebook graphic to the right explains, allowing people to subscribe to your updates is a “way to broaden your conversation on Facebook, while reserving personal updates for people you know well.”

When you subscribe to somebody on Facebook the only thing you see is information that a person is willing to share publicly. For example, you can subscribe to Mark Zuckerberg (the founder and CEO of Facebook). When you do this the only thing you see are status updates and photos that he has hand-picked to share with the world. When he posts more personal content he’d only like to share with his close family and friends he changes who that information is shared with, and the millions of subscribers he has won’t see a thing.

I think this could be a great alternative for someone interested in connecting with minors in a safe and appropriate manner.

Why is Facebook Subscribe a Safe Alternative for Interacting with Kids?

In the past, our issues with an employee of a youth-focused organization communicating with minors was the fact that most contact online isn’t public… at least not by default. If a summer camp counselor and a camper became Facebook friends then some of their communication would be completely private (Facebook messages) and the other communication would only be visible to their friends (status updates and comments on the Facebook Wall). The beauty of Facebook Subscribe is that ALL of the contact between a user and their subscriber is public.

If a school teacher were to publish a photo publicly on their Facebook page then one of their students could “Like” it or comment on it. This interaction between the two would be out there for the entire world to see – including the child’s parents and even school administrators. And if that same teacher began sharing public content deemed inappropriate, everyone else would be able to see that too. These people could then raise their concerns with the teacher directly or the appropriate school administrators. It’s built-in checks and balances.

As more and more people become fully immersed in social networking – and electronic communication in general – it will become increasingly important for organizations to be prepared to address difficult decisions related to privacy, training, communication with minors, and a wide array of other concerns.

In an attempt to provide some direction for organizations hoping to protect themselves, their employees, and their members, we are very excited to announce the release of our Social Media Best Practices Guide. This short, straight-forward best practice guide addresses the most pressing questions non-profit, youth-focused, and community-based organizations might have with social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

But before we send you to the document we want to make one thing clear; this guide is a risk management best practice guide… NOT a marketing best practice guide. Social media best practice guides are traditionally designed with marketing people in mind. You’ve seen them: “Always imagine your messages are broadcast on a billboard“, “Be engaging, not preachy“, and “Only use three hashtags per tweet“. These are all good nuggets of information, but none of these address issues of liability, negligence, EPLI claims, or defamation.

So, before reading, remember that many of these recommendations will go against every other social media best practice guide you’ve ever read.

After you’ve gone through the guide stop back and let us know what you think in the comment section below. What do you think we are missing? Do you disagree with any of the recommendations?