There are many who cloak themselves in the First Amendment and the protections of free speech.

But the expanding forms of social messages sent in various word counts on a range of digital platforms opens new questions as to what speech is protected and where are the boundary lines.

For those in the media, the issues of free speech and free press go hand in hand.

We stand firm for our right to publish, to at times shield the identity of confidential sources and to pry open closed doors of information.

With the right comes an obligation to avoid slanderous, libelous and defaming statements.

For years print journalists have wrestled with the wild wild West — the Internet — and those who populate it without the fear of a legal club hanging over every word. Conventional wisdom has been that there are not deep enough pockets to warrant a lawyer’s time to go after bloggers and others because even in victory, the spoils would be minimal.

Times and lawsuits may be changing, and with that the rules of engagement for Internet-based communications.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, based in San Francisco, engages in defending digital rights. On its Web site (eff.org) the foundation states, “The Internet is radically enhancing our access to information and empowering us to share ideas with the entire world. Speech thrives online, freed of limitations inherent in other media and created by traditional gatekeepers.”

Those of us in the gatekeeper field — newspapers — understand the huge microscope that peers at every word, headline or left out story and looks for a reason to criticize fairness and objectivity. The integrity of a news organization is on the line and accountability is measured by perceived motive whether in print, online or a social network, i.e., Facebook, Twitter or MySpace.

Coming to grips with how to manage the postings that appear on social network sites is sporadic at best. Many companies have no policy and, in some instances, have not really thought about how to administer employee involvement.

Media companies are struggling to set the rules.

The Associated Press got push back from its journalists when setting out a policy to restrict social network postings from another party.

The Washington Post updated its standards after an editor used a social network site to express a personal opinion on a news item.

Ben Parr, co-editor of Mashable, an online social media guide, says, “You have to contemplate what might happen if someone says or does something stupid.” Social networks are used as work tools by businesses, including media companies.

Sharlyn Lauby, president of Internet Talent Management, writes on Mashable that companies need a social media policy. She cites IBM’s social media policy as an example, and that the company clearly states “the lines between public and private, personal and professional are blurred in online social networks.” The policy continues, “Remember there are always consequences to what you publish. You have sole responsibility for what you post to your blog or publish in any form of online social media.”

Ms. Lauby lists 10 “must-haves” for a social media policy. Included in her list are exercising good judgment whether the posted comments “relate directly” to a person’s job.

“Your employees should understand that companies can and will monitor employee use of social media and social networking web sites, even if they are engaging in social networking or social media away from the office,” she writes.

The Internet and the use of online messages, e-mails and social network sites creates a sense of ease and instantaneous gratification through sending and receiving information. But as requests are made for open records of the written type, electronic communications, including postings on social networks sites, may be retrievable, especially those that are on taxpayer-funded Internet servers.

There are real tugs on the First Amendment with the explosion of online communication.

The conventional wisdom is that dialogue on a social network site, particularly those that have restricted recipients, are private, off-limits but that may not be the case.

The rules are less clear to those who live in Internet domains.

E-mail Tom Griscom at tgriscom@timesfreepresss.com.