Pasquotank considers policy regulating employees’ use of social media.

Policy is probably needed, but commissioners need to be sure free speech rights aren’t trampled when it’s applied.

Like a lot of other institutions both public and private, Pasquotank County finds itself thrust into the middle of the social media revolution. With residents demanding and expecting access to more information quicker than ever before, the county created a page on the social networking site Facebook last summer as the region was in the throes of Hurricane Irene. The site currently allows the county to reach citizens in real time who either don’t read newspapers, listen to radio or watch TV, but need to know the latest news about impending storms, upcoming meetings, proposed ordinances and other county goings-on.

County officials are also having to pay more attention to what is said in the county’s name as the number of platforms for disseminating information expands exponentially. County employees, like millions of online citizens around the world, have created Facebook pages and Twitter accounts where daily they express themselves and share their thoughts, photos and videos.

Thus far, the county hasn’t seen fit to impose any formal rules on what employees say and do online.

But that could soon change. County officials have pulled together a proposed “external communications” policy that, in addition to setting up some rules of the road for county employees to follow while online, also for the first time designates how the county responds to the media.

On the whole, the proposed policy seems straightforward and commonsensical. Nonetheless, county commissioners delayed action on it until they’ve had more time to study and discuss it in detail. Given the proposal’s potential implications on free speech rights, it seems like the smart thing to do.

Under one of its commonsense provisions, the policy bars county departments from creating separate websites or Facebook pages without permission and from linking them to other websites that aren’t related to government, other public agencies or other entities with a “project-specific” relationship with the county. That provision would prohibit actions like that of Hertford’s former police chief, for example, who last fall linked an online news story about a town council candidate to a police department website.

The policy also outlines how the county will handle one of the most explosive parts of social networking: comments by visitors to the county’s Facebook page. While posted comments that are negative or unfavorable to the county aren’t supposed to be arbitrarily removed from the site, the county will reserve the right to take down those that are profane or obscene; solicit commerce; take positions on political campaigns or ballot measures; engage in defamatory or personal attacks or that make threats; and that promote or foster racial and other forms of discrimination.

While monitoring visitor comments is the responsible thing to do, county officials — if this policy is eventually adopted — will need to strive to ensure removal is practiced consistently and fairly. Because a county official disagrees with something that is posted isn’t a good reason for removing it.

The policy also controls the posting of confidential information or photos related to crime suspects or emergency medical incidents, generally prohibiting their release but leaving the decision up to department heads. This is critically important given the vast amounts of sensitive information law enforcement and emergency medical service responders are privy to.

The policy contains fairly standard rules of conduct for employees who decide to write or e-mail letters to the editor — they shouldn’t do it on county time or use county equipment, and they should always try to communicate that the opinion they’re expressing is their own, not the county’s.

But it’s the policy’s rules for employee use of social media in their personal time that is likely to get the most scrutiny and could stir the most controversy.

While the policy can’t prohibit employees from creating personal Facebook pages or using social media to express themselves, it does sternly remind them that online behavior isn’t completely unfettered. In general, that means the rules employees already have to follow under the county’s existing personnel policy would apply to their conduct online. For example, employees already aren’t supposed to engage in conduct that impairs relationships at work, impedes them from carrying out their duties or reflects poorly on the county.

Similarly, speech in public forums that would get employees in trouble now — such as sexually explicit language — can also subject them to disciplinary action if expressed online. The policy further urges employees to attach a disclaimer to their online postings pointing out that the opinions they are expressing are their own.

Most significantly, employees are warned that they could be disciplined for “inappropriate comments that reflect badly on (their) employer,” even if the comments are expressed on their own time, on their own social media site. In addition, employees in “senior positions ... who work in politically sensitive areas” — presumably the county manager, the county attorney and department heads — are cautioned to be extra careful about posting their views online.

This provision no doubt will raise the most constitutional concerns. It’s not clear the county can legally discipline or fire an employee for saying something that “reflects badly on their employer” when that employee is on his own time.

Probably the best piece of advice in the entire policy is one urging county employees to “use common sense” when they’re online. We would hope commissioners and county officials will do the same when interpreting and applying this policy if they choose to approve it. A county employee who says on his personal Facebook page that commissioners had the wrong priorities when they denied him and his fellow employees a raise should not be sacked for sharing his opinion.

Doing so would put a chill on free speech — the exact opposite of what this social media revolution is supposed to be all about.