|
|
|
June 23, 2006
Selective blog blocking?
The New York Times reports an allegation that the State of Kentucky is selectively blocking liberal blogs: Jill Midkiff, spokeswoman for the agency that oversees Internet technology decisions for state government, denied any intention to limit free speech or to single out Mr. Nickolas or other bloggers of similar political leanings.NOTE: Clicking the links to Rush Limbaugh and the RNC does not take you to blogs; only to Times stories. What immediately drew my interest was was the phrase "conservative blogs belonging to Rush Limbaugh." I knew he had a web site where he publishes various opinions, didn't I know he owned any blogs. As a matter of fact, Limbaugh has been highly critical of blogs. (I suspect that what Mr. Nickolas meant was conservative blogs in general, and the thought was inartfully expressed.) I've complained many times about content filters, which block this blog and many others, and I think they may be one of the larger longterm threats to the blogosphere. However, while private individuals and entities can block whatever they want, once the government bureaucrats get into it, they have a responsibility to be fair. And if the allegations by Mark Nickolas are true, Kentucky bureaucrats have not been fair. According to Nickolas, despite the government's claim that political blogs are uniformly blocked, the conservative blogs still work, but only liberal blogs critical of the governor are inaccessible. UPDATE #7: From a source within state government:As further evidence of selectivity, Nickolas lists the following sites (without links) as not blocked: So far this morning, the following conservative/Republican websites are still available for state employee viewing:What I don't know is whether the larger leftish blogs (and news sites such as Raw Story) are blocked. If they aren't, then this may be a case of selective retaliation against liberal Kentucky blogs which are critical of the governor. Either way, it's appalling. Unfortunately, I think there will be a lot more of this sort of thing. Among the ominous statements Nickolas attributes to the government was this mouthful by a man I've never heard of (described as the governor's "IT hack"): UPDATE #19: Fletcher IT hack, Mark Rutledge, is now scrambling to say this action was not directing at BGR, but to all "blogs". He offers the most absurd, unprincipled argument for limiting the ban to blogs but not mainstream news organizations:Look, I don't know much about the Kentucky governor, as Kentucky politics isn't my shtick. But unless Mark Nickolas is making all this up (which I doubt) the governor has not made a fan out of me, as it certainly appears that under his administration, there's the following: Either of these should be resolutely condemned. The problem is that while the latter is indefensible by any standard, the meme that blogs should be treated as "inferior" to news sites -- and even to syndicated (read "official") opinion writers -- is spreading. Like a cancer. Even bloggers who disagree with each other philosophically ought to stick together on this one. (Whether Kentucky government employees will now have access to Classical Values remains to be seen.) posted by Eric on 06.23.06 at 07:27 AM
Comments
I agree that there's no right to visit web sites on the job, but once they allow it (whether on breaks or otherwise) that's another matter. If the government allows Internet use but then blocks only certain web sites based on whether the political content meets with government standards (Drudge and some blogs are OK but not others) I think that violates the First Amendment. . . If employees can access the Internet, the remedy against employees who use it on the clock is to fire them, not police the political content of what they're reading. Eric Scheie · June 23, 2006 10:15 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
No employee on government owned equipment (or private business owned equipment, unless the employer has specifically authorized it) has authorization to use the Internet to anything other than visit work related sites, for work related reasons. You're on the clock.
The fact that a few slip through their filters doesn't change the policy. Relying on technology to police your employees is always a mistake, as a few will always slip through.
The policy is, you can't use office (in this case, state) resources for personal use. If an employee went to Drudge, it is still a violation of policy if it is done so for personal reasons.
You can't even buy coffee for employees with state money.