Guest editorial

In case you missed it, on January 11 the board emailed a new policy called

 “POLICY REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS, RECORDS REQUESTS, OWNER PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS, RECORDING MEETINGS, AND SOCIAL MEDIA”

Really, how many of us followed every link in the January 11 email newsletter and read it through?     

Let’s take a look at was buried on pages 8-9. 

It states: "The Board of Directors acknowledges that owners may create their own social media pages to facilitate ease of communication with other members of the Association. Such pages must be private (not open to the public) and limited only to current Members or residents of the Association. Such private social media pages must contain a clear disclaimer...."  and goes on to state "The Association reserves the right to bring legal action on behalf of any officer, director, committee member or member of the property management team against any person who engages in legal defamation, harassment, cyber stalking/bullying, infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with a business relationship or any other legally actionable tort whether online or in any other forum.”

Snark warning>. “Why thank you, O mighty board of directors, that we homeowners may be allowed to exercise our free speech as long as we abide by your unilaterally-mandated moderation rules under threat of being civilly sued for “emotional distress” by an attorney that we're paying for? !  Wow, that’s chutzpah!”

The reason this is so absurd is because this policy is unnecessary to address already criminal activities such as harassment, cyber-bullying, or other illegal, prohibited content (e.g. exploitation videos).  

Nope, this policy seems to claim that the HOA board has the right to make Facebook group moderators or independent website administrators vulnerable to expensive lawfare claims.  Now presumably the “Emotionally distressed” party or group would be provided legal representation for a civil suit against said social media admin or user -- by the HOA’s own attorney.   In contrast, social media admins (unless also a board member or other protected group listed in the policy) would not qualify for the same free legal support or defamation defense.

Hmm. That not only seems unfair but appears to be a conflict of interest.  Can an attorney represent both the ‘distressed’ individual or group and at the same time represent the interests of the entire homeowners association — whose charter includes reducing expenses for the benefit of all?  What do you think?  (Uh oh.  Perhaps even asking this question could be considered “tortious interference with a business relationship” with and by our HOA's attorney. )

Besides, the entire purpose of social media sites is to be an electronic town square for the free exchange of ideas.   NOTE: Section 230 of federal law distinguishes between a "publisher" (that actively moderates content) and an "interactive computer service" (that hosts a site or forum).   Could this HOA policy unknowingly steer part-time social media administrators away from their "interactive services" liability protection into becoming "publishers" with less protection?  Clearly, this could have a chilling effect on homeowners' free speech. 

Are you a Medley Facebook or Independent website admin who has been pressured to remove posts by others that were neither deliberate lies nor prohibited content?  If so feel free to comment anonymously below…. (providing your email address is not required.)

MedleyMembers.net footnote:  This site will use the Twitter/X model  of community notes to fact check false claims, but not restrict reasonable opinions, stated as such, or simple questions.  Note: It may take a day for posts to appear while we try out the moderation features of this website.