One of the tweets posted by Scott McIntyre. The publication enjoys an additional channel of distribution and when done well, the engagement with the readers works for the journalist's profile and credibility and also the masthead. More importantly, publications place a great deal of trust in their people on social media. It is live, instant – and irreversible, thanks to rapid-fire screenshots snapped by keen observers. A journalist on Twitter is powerful for both distribution and engagement. Indeed, Twitter courts them by giving them the "verified" blue tick. Fairfax Media's Latika Bourke has provided a flawless masterclass since her time at 2UE until today. Literally years without a blemish. But for every Bourke, there are hundreds of others giving HR managers night sweats. This is compounded when the journalist is on the taxpayer's dime, which in essence McIntyre was.

Publications need their scribes out there, but at no stage is this an exercise in free-range fingers, belting out unfiltered wisdoms. If employees go on a frolic, the boss gets the heat. It happens every day. It just happens to be this is all the more saucy because the Communications Minister threw his own truth bombs in the SBS bunker, where McIntyre and SBS' managing director Michael E beid were now holding out. But McIntyre, a mere private, dragged the 3-star general into the firefight. The employment relationship is master-servant. That is, you agree to the lawful direction or your employer, or you go. While the minutia of SBS's contracting and policy framework may yet be challenged by McIntyre, it cannot be disputed that an employer has a right to clip an employee's social media wings, even when after hours. In 2013, the Federal Circuit Court would have no part of Michaela Banerji​'s attempts to stop her employer sacking her. She took to Twitter on a fake account, and trolled her boss, who happened to be Sandi Logan, the then boss of communications for the Department of Immigration, where she also worked. Judge Neville found Australians had no "unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression". The interesting twist in McIntyre's social commentary, that has unhelpfully been conscripted as the curtailing of free speech and journalistic independence, was that on the 100th anniversary of Anzac Day, he strayed from his expertise in the world game, into highly contentious statements, presented as matters of fact. As a journalist, on a very public platform, this was crazy-brave. Why on Anzac Day? Had he not been watching the tone of his employer's coverage? By deviating so much from the tone of his employer, was this act of viva la resistance? Or was this a complete failure of awareness that with his Twitter, blue tick and all, with his employer's name right there, comes some responsibility to his platform and his bosses? More so if he has contractual obligations to do so.

If not responsibility, how about respect to his audience to serve up something more than criticising Anzacs, the subjection of national commemoration and reverence? Calling those being mourned and honoured unread, drunk and rapists, on the very same day his employer's coverage on that very topic was hitting the peak of the crescendo? If McIntyre felt so strongly on the topic, why did he not do an investigative piece that was balanced and fair, as the community demands, or at least craves of journalists? Well, sometimes. Even if bound by an exclusivity clause stopping him being published elsewhere, it could have appeared under pseudonym. Journalists and most employees of businesses with a public profile have codes of conduct and specific policies on social media. They aren't there to tick a box, but are there in part to keep your talent confined so you do not lose good people. The tragedy here is that McIntyre knew the rules and reportedly when asked to retreat, he stood his ground. Forcing his employer's hand while the angry Twitter mob jumped from the echo chamber to national news. Forget legal and branding issues, the biggest loss is to SBS. When Ebeid awoke early on Saturday, after spending in his words "unprecedented" resources on Anzac coverage, it would be highly unlikely that he gave McIntyre, an Asian soccer correspondent a second thought, let alone thinking he would be sacking a long-term stablemate by the time Sunday roast was over.

SBS has lost a trusted talent. That creates its own problems. McIntyre dropped a nuke on his workplace, that is going to linger long after he gets a job elsewhere. Colleagues are speaking out. Some are angry with Ebeid's decision and many journalists have taken to attacking the SBS. His actions made his employer the pariah in many media outlets, and wounds with his colleagues will now need to heal – both within SBS and more broadly. The Fair Work Commission and superior courts don't pause in holding employees to account for their behaviour on social media, even if outside work. In a master-servant relationship, if you bring your employer into disrepute or breach your contract – which in legal speak, is "wilful or deliberate behaviour by an employee that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment", including "the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer's business", the Fair Work Act, through regulation, green-lights an immediate dismissal. McIntyre is not a pin-up boy for free speech. His actions demonstrate a disregard for his employment relationship, especially if reports are true that he could have saved his skin had he immediately retreated and apologised. He chose to type what he did. He knew his employer's expectations. Where premium journalists' jobs are just that, he only has himself to blame.

Miles Heffernan is the former features editor of Star Observer and is the head of workplace litigation at Employment Advisors. He tweets under @mileshef.