One only needs to scan the local news to witness the way changes in technology incrementally alter people's actions and the corresponding consequences. Over time, individuals and organizations embrace (or reject) the changes and modify their behaviors. Legal considerations play a prominent role in the adjustment process.

During the past few years, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, among other services, have attracted hundreds of millions of users at a rapid pace. Many people sign up for these services and start using them without contemplating the practical, much less the legal, consequences. Perhaps individual users feel (probably incorrectly) that they have nothing to lose by freely engaging in social media.

To be certain, both the potential risks and rewards of social media for organizations are substantial. I tend to advocate the benefits of social media use by businesses in the areas of marketing, communication, training and research, among others. However, as an attorney, my primary role is to point out the legal implications of an organization's approach to social media.

In a sense, the fundamental legal issues raised by the popularity of social media platforms are not revolutionary. At the same time, the particular characteristics of these new methods of communication do give cause for concern. Importantly, social media fosters immediate dissemination of information to a large number of recipients. Given the electronic transmission, the message is recorded in a tangible - and potentially permanent - format. Moreover, social media tends to produce informal dialogue that often reaches unintended audiences.

The following are just some of the most pressing questions organizations are asking about "social media law."

Is it OK to "Google" job applicants and check out their LinkedIn profiles? For several years, many employment attorneys have answered this question with an emphatic "No!" That response is legally justifiable based on the enhanced potential for intentional or even inadvertent discrimination (among other considerations). Simply put, you are apt to find out things on the Internet that you would not learn from a résumé, application or interview. Some of that information (e.g., political affiliation, family medical history) might be off limits for hiring decisions. Nonetheless, in most organizations, someone involved in the hiring process, whether authorized to do so or not, will probably go online to find out more about a job candidate. And, in fact, anecdotal accounts suggest that the Internet can be an immensely valuable recruiting tool. Therefore, in many organizations, the better approach would be to develop policies and procedures to allow some Internet research of applicants without undue legal exposure.

May we prohibit employees from using Facebook? Not necessarily. Employers generally (perhaps with some restrictions) have the right to control their own computing equipment and networks. Thus, under most circumstances they can forbid employees from accessing particular Internet sites. They may even have the technical capability to block access to such sites. There is not necessarily anything illegal about such policies and practices, but they have proven difficult to enforce given the ready access of social media applications through employees' mobile devices. On the other hand, absent compelling justification, employers might be legally prohibited from forbidding employees from using social media outside of work. Recent actions by the National Labor Relations Board further demonstrate the potential that discipline based on social media activities could be construed to violate employees' rights to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection (e.g., discussing working conditions). Thus, the better solution for many will be to advise employees regarding what they may and may not do through social media.

What if we instead encourage people to promote our products and services online? Then you have a different set of concerns. Federal Trade Commission regulations have been revised in recent years to inform companies that restrictions on endorsement and testimonial advertising apply to social media as well. Consequently, it is inappropriate (i.e., likely illegal) to pay someone to talk up your business on Twitter, Facebook, etc., while masquerading as an impartial observer. Further liability could result for organizations whose employees' postings are defamatory or infringe the copyrighted or trademarked materials of others (all commonplace activities on blogs and other social media platforms).

Does it matter what employees do on their own time? First, are you sure it is their own time? The lines between the workplace and personal time have blurred. Wage and hour laws require that most employees be compensated for working time, even if their employers have not scheduled or authorized the work. Second, yes ... it matters. Harassing or abusive social networking messages exchanged between employees are bad news whenever they occur. Beyond the morale issues, organizational liability could still attach. In addition, unwitting or malicious employees can quickly disseminate detrimental company information through even relatively short social networking posts. Accordingly, company policies should address off-duty social media activities, as well.

Most organizations (whether government or private, for-profit or not) will face the above issues (and others) soon, if they have not already. The "right" or "wrong" approach will depend on multiple factors specific to the circumstances. The "answers" will change along with the underlying technology and corresponding human behaviors. The law of social media will continue to develop, as well.

Scott Horton is a labor and employment attorney with Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel LLP