one job I often had was in interpreting law to write the policy in accordance with it, and another was in interpreting policy to see procedures were in accordance with it. Both very similar, but slightly different.

Until I see the actual DISH policy I have to go with what's in the judgement and it shows the policy as stating "unless authorised to do so you may not participate on company time" then goes on about the other stuff. Since the authorisation is first it has primacy, then next is the company time, and the rest is stated after that without showing as a new primary or secondary level matter, and thus in third place with the other two in power over them.

Another point is that the judge's conclusion item 3 on page 12 is wrong in light of the actual policy as shown in the judgement as he claims they can't use social media on their own time while the stated policy states on company time. Unless he failed to include relevant parts of the policy in the judgement, in which case he screwed up.