LIFE at the Old Firm certainly brings some very modern problems.

At Rangers, one man's dream of working as a club director lies in tatters as a result of an insulting photo sent from his Twitter account.

At Celtic, the captain's professionalism is being called into question as a result of someone taking photographs of him eating pizza on the pavement during the course of a night out and submitting them to a national newspaper.

These alleged misdemeanours are considerably different in nature, of course, but they do highlight the particular difficulties of now having any kind of existence that could be deemed to be within the public eye, far less at two institutions that colour the fabric of life in the west of Scotland.

They should also provide each of us with food for thought. If Chris Graham did, as it appears, post a crude cartoon of the Prophet, he was extremely foolish. His resignation from the board at Ibrox just three days after being appointed as a supporters' representative indicates that he accepts that.

It was an error of judgment in a wholly unforgiving forum. Social media is a complex, largely unpredictable place in which one rash remark can go viral and one injudicious key strike can bring serious repercussions.

Certainly, if Graham's replacement is to come from the wider fanbase, their Facebook and Twitter profiles will be examined forensically beforehand. This is wise, but arguments can be made over whether it is entirely a good thing.

Does someone suddenly become an unsuitable candidate for a job because of a joke posted on a message board months or years earlier or a questionable 'retweet' deemed to be distasteful? If so, does using social media mean we are always to be mindful of what we do, say or suggest on it.

Graham's demise is not the perfect case study, of course. He was in the wrong. Scott Brown's situation is less clear.

The Celtic midfielder, it appears, went out for a drink in Edinburgh, fell asleep in a lapdancing bar and decided his late-evening repast was best enjoyed in a sitting position. He didn't hit anyone, did not contravene any laws and does not seem guilty of infringing any club policies.

One can understand, if not agree, with the actions of the newsdesk that received those pictures. Why did someone felt the need to photograph Brown in the first place, though?

Is the guy not allowed to let off steam with friends without being snapped like some kind of captive in a zoo and held up to be mocked? Has Facebook opened up everything in our lives to being captured and disseminated by strangers?

Our new digital existence remains in its infancy and will surely change and evolve, but it feels a little like the Wild West. Abuse and vilification seem to be the overwhelming narrative. This is hard enough to deal with for individuals accustomed to having their words dissected, but becomes a vicious trap for others. It is certainly to be treated with caution and used with care by all of us - not just footballers and directors.