Are our terms of service clear and sufficiently narrow to accomplish our goals without deterring legitimate speech?

In drafting terms of service, companies that provide a forum for content or communication need to consider carefully whether they want to be in the business of policing those forums. Terms of use that include vague or overbroad prohibitions, such as speech seen as "offensive," may not only deter users by limiting speech, they may put a company in the undesirable position of having to decide whether and how to respond to disputes between users about alleged violations of terms of service.

• Prohibit only content or speech that is illegal or disrupts the primary function of your site or service. Terms of use that are narrowly tailored in this manner will help avoid burdensome monitoring of speech and the potential for inconsistent applications and accusations of bias.
• Provide an appeal mechanism. Give users a way to appeal any alleged violation and resolve disputes over whether a given piece of content violates the terms of service. Give users an opportunity to present their side of the story before imposing consequences.
• Clearly spell out the consequences of violating terms of service. Allow users to remedy violations rather than automatically deleting content or terminating accounts.

Twitter: "Microblogging" site Twitter was dragged into drama in 2008 because of its overbroad terms of service. By including a clause that "users must not…harass…or intimidate other Twitter users," it was caught in the middle when two users were in conflict. Rather than taking sides, Twitter did the right thing and modified its terms of service. Of course, it could have avoided the problem if it had finely tuned its terms of service in the beginning to avoid overbroad language such as "harass" or "intimidate."