My family has a strict No Social Media Policy — despite the fact that approximately half of its members spend their lives secretly monitoring the social media activity of the other half. So I am deeply sorry to my niece L5, who thought she was just studying for the MCAT, but instead must also play a starring role in this post, as she did in my post about the Family Corporate Communications Policy. L5 — your comfort with the human body is admirable. Don't let anyone say otherwise.
(If you don't understand why I am calling my niece L5, please read my post on the Family Corporate Communications Policy.)
So L5, like me, is at a bit of a disadvantage in regards to compliance with the Family Corporate Policy. Her father, the oldest male in my family, disregards the Policy with the impunity provided to him at birth so he has not properly advised his daughter on its provisions. As for her mother, she is not really part of the Family because she is European so I don't think I need to explain any further. (Although she was deemed to have indirect liability here, because L5's swimwear preferences — the ultimate source of familial distress — are undoubtedly more Europe than Connecticut, USA.)
So let me first provide you the Family Social Media Policy, which states:
No member of this organization shall maintain a public presence on any social media platform. Information shared publicly reflects on the entire organization and is therefore prohibited. Violations will be handled pursuant to the Corporate Communications Policy.
Now that seems pretty straightforward until you recognize that violations are handled under the Corporate Communications Policy. Which has raised some interpretive ambiguity and just general frustration because that policy prohibits direct communications between the aggrieved party and the offender in the interests of maintaining family allegiances. It works just fine for me though. I am of course pretty clueless on corporate compliance given my decades living 3000 miles away so I can declare ignorance and if anyone has a gripe with that, their only remedy is to complain about me to someone else. (Yes, I have gone from a corporate policy newbie to an expert on skirting its provisions.)
Moving on to the European Swimwear Incident. So L5 posts a photo of herself on Instagram in a bikini which someone deems offensive (the original aggrieved party has never been disclosed, at least not to me). Personally I don't particularly care given that as a competitive dancer her whole life, I figure L5 is rightfully proud of her body (and then there is the whole European thing, which really isn't her fault). But even I can see the flagrant violation of clear Corporate Policy. Being under 21, L5 is not protected by the "no direct communications" provisions, so she eventually has to cave under the sheer force of Family pressure and removes the photo.
I will note it has reappeared after her 21st birthday so apparently she understands the Policy loophole too. I'm proud of her, needless to say.
As for me, the L5 incident taught me that Family Policy violations are dealt with swiftly and without opportunity for appeal. For a dysfunctional organization, we are surprisingly efficient in this area. So I take protective measures. Yes, I rely on the "no direct communications" loophole. But I realize that eventually some violation will lead to a collective override of that clause. So I do what any intelligent woman who has been an attorney since 1998 would do — I provide Notice and seek Pre-clearance from my mother. I know that I will be reported (for a No Social Media family, we are quite good at sniffing out No Social Media Policy violations). So I develop my defense early. Mom authorization provides complete and total immunity from prosecution. The Policy says so. (See Section VI, Immunity & Defenses.) Take that, Anonymous Aggrieved Party.