11-10-2013, 11:56 PM
The issue is not invasion of privacy, IMO. It's not an invasion of privacy to react/respond (negatively or positively; rightly or wrongly) to something that's posted publicly on Facebook or other social media.
You want elements of your personal life kept private - then don't put them in the public domain - whether you're a teacher, police officer, housewife, butcher, baker, candlestick maker... Always been that way; even before Facebook and even before Mrs. Johnson socked it to the Harper Valley PTA.
I don't agree with the school's alleged interpretation of the photo as "immoral" and the firing of the coach in this case. But, the school didn't invade her privacy; she waived her privacy when she posted the pic for others to view.
You want elements of your personal life kept private - then don't put them in the public domain - whether you're a teacher, police officer, housewife, butcher, baker, candlestick maker... Always been that way; even before Facebook and even before Mrs. Johnson socked it to the Harper Valley PTA.
I don't agree with the school's alleged interpretation of the photo as "immoral" and the firing of the coach in this case. But, the school didn't invade her privacy; she waived her privacy when she posted the pic for others to view.