I am guessing they have a new policy by noon Wednesday.

What an ideal 1st amendment employment discrimination claim against the city. Private employers will not be deterred however.

isn't this what all the "free' social networking is about ?

They've already changed their minds on this policy:

http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/Global/story.asp?S=10558291

But then, after you are hired these folks will watch to see who is being naughty and who is being nice.

http://www.eloyalty.com/who/ba/index.php

In our society, from small towns to big cities, the public has demonstrated an expectation that teachers and other public employees refrain from representing themselves in public venues as being immoral, unethical, and immature individuals. It’s called public trust. This makes the citizenry feel better about turning over their money and their decision-making to what amounts to be strangers. In turn, the public employee, a.k.a. the stranger, should realize that their position is one of holding public trust and representative of others in that public entity and act accordingly. Posting one’s private life on a non-password protected page such as photos of themselves in lingerie, detailing the sexual intimacies between themselves and their partner, declaring co-workers to be imbecilic, or just showing a lack of intellect and maturity is not something to decry that others are accessing it. However, if it is password-protected to allow your friends/family only, I see little to decry as a member of the public or the employees represented. Caveat for us all is, are our friends really our friends?