Internet Censorship - First Shot Across the Bow?

[Gunny]

We have seen quite a bit of discussion re rumors of the government taking control of the internet and having power to block access to this or that. If there has been any support for that on USMB, I missed it.

But the rumors persist and there's always that chance that when there is smoke. . . .

Noted this blurb today re one government agency that is implementing the policy. Now I can see why an employer would restrict chat messaging, social networking stuff even like USMB, gaming sites etc. You don't want your employees spending all their time doing that. But blocking "controversial news/opinion sites?" Who decides what is controversial?

(Credit: CBS News) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

And listening to other commentary, it is speculated that this may be the first shot across the bow. If it works out at the TSA, it could be implemented in other government agencies and eventually spread to the private sector. There isn't so much problem with an employer exercising control of how company computers can be used. But if the government should decide to make it mandatory for their contractors, etc. . . . .

And wouldn't it be good for a security agency to have their thumb on the pulse of controversial issues out there?

I don't know. I see a possible red flag here. Do you?

US Government censorship can kiss my ass. How's that work for you? Big Brother can kiss my ass and I hope whoever is spying on this board reports me to who-the-fuck-ever. I'll be more than willing to be hauled down to the station so I can tell them to kiss my ass in person.

 

[R.C. Christian]

We have seen quite a bit of discussion re rumors of the government taking control of the internet and having power to block access to this or that. If there has been any support for that on USMB, I missed it.

But the rumors persist and there's always that chance that when there is smoke. . . .

Noted this blurb today re one government agency that is implementing the policy. Now I can see why an employer would restrict chat messaging, social networking stuff even like USMB, gaming sites etc. You don't want your employees spending all their time doing that. But blocking "controversial news/opinion sites?" Who decides what is controversial?

(Credit: CBS News) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

And listening to other commentary, it is speculated that this may be the first shot across the bow. If it works out at the TSA, it could be implemented in other government agencies and eventually spread to the private sector. There isn't so much problem with an employer exercising control of how company computers can be used. But if the government should decide to make it mandatory for their contractors, etc. . . . .

And wouldn't it be good for a security agency to have their thumb on the pulse of controversial issues out there?

I don't know. I see a possible red flag here. Do you?

US Government censorship can kiss my ass. How's that work for you? Big Brother can kiss my ass and I hope whoever is spying on this board reports me to who-the-fuck-ever. I'll be more than willing to be hauled down to the station so I can tell them to kiss my ass in person.

That's the spirit.

 

[George Costanza]

We have seen quite a bit of discussion re rumors of the government taking control of the internet and having power to block access to this or that. If there has been any support for that on USMB, I missed it.

But the rumors persist and there's always that chance that when there is smoke. . . .

Noted this blurb today re one government agency that is implementing the policy. Now I can see why an employer would restrict chat messaging, social networking stuff even like USMB, gaming sites etc. You don't want your employees spending all their time doing that. But blocking "controversial news/opinion sites?" Who decides what is controversial?

(Credit: CBS News) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

And listening to other commentary, it is speculated that this may be the first shot across the bow. If it works out at the TSA, it could be implemented in other government agencies and eventually spread to the private sector. There isn't so much problem with an employer exercising control of how company computers can be used. But if the government should decide to make it mandatory for their contractors, etc. . . . .

And wouldn't it be good for a security agency to have their thumb on the pulse of controversial issues out there?

I don't know. I see a possible red flag here. Do you?

Not in favor of censorship? Me neither. Would you consider a governmental ruling limiting the language that can be used on the airways to be censorship? I sure would. Guess who did that? The Bush administration.

Well, you will be happy to know, that a federal appeals court has stricken that policy.

The FCC, the courts and on-air indecency - latimes.com

Let's keep up the fight against censorship!

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, folks, let's try this again. Everybody sober now? Awake? Focused? Concentrating?

Nobody here has objected to employes restricting company computers to work related activities, and if some websites are blocked, nobody has a problem with that. When employees are on the clock and paid by the hour or a salary for working a shift, there is no problem requiring them to work rather than goof off on the internet.

Okay? It's okay to block websites on company computers. Are we agreed on that?

The question in my mind, however, is why are 'controversial opinion' sites blocked but not 'non controversial' opinion sites? Who decides what is and what is not controversial?

Is it beyond reasonable speculation that a purpose of such a policy might be political or for propaganda purposes? And if it proves to be effective for such purposes, the tendency could spread? And is it beyond reasonable to think that is a bit sinister?

Again, the issue is not whether an employer can or should limit internet access at work.

The question is why that one thing in particular.

The use of the category "controversial opinion sites" was probably just a catch-all. I think you're overreacting.

Okay here's the categories they're making 'illegal' for their employees again:

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

Now change that 'controversial opinion' to LIBERAL opinion.

Would you still think I was overreacting?

 

[Foxfyre]

We have seen quite a bit of discussion re rumors of the government taking control of the internet and having power to block access to this or that. If there has been any support for that on USMB, I missed it.

But the rumors persist and there's always that chance that when there is smoke. . . .

Noted this blurb today re one government agency that is implementing the policy. Now I can see why an employer would restrict chat messaging, social networking stuff even like USMB, gaming sites etc. You don't want your employees spending all their time doing that. But blocking "controversial news/opinion sites?" Who decides what is controversial?

(Credit: CBS News) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

And listening to other commentary, it is speculated that this may be the first shot across the bow. If it works out at the TSA, it could be implemented in other government agencies and eventually spread to the private sector. There isn't so much problem with an employer exercising control of how company computers can be used. But if the government should decide to make it mandatory for their contractors, etc. . . . .

And wouldn't it be good for a security agency to have their thumb on the pulse of controversial issues out there?

I don't know. I see a possible red flag here. Do you?

Not in favor of censorship? Me neither. Would you consider a governmental ruling limiting the language that can be used on the airways to be censorship? I sure would. Guess who did that? The Bush administration.

Well, you will be happy to know, that a federal appeals court has stricken that policy.

The FCC, the courts and on-air indecency - latimes.com

Let's keep up the fight against censorship!

Can we do it without evoking "Foxfyre's "W" Law?"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/120997-foxfyres-law-3.html

The Bush Administration FCC struggled with the same cultural sense of propriety and acceptability that every other administration has struggled with since the invention of radio.

There has always been censorship re what could be broadcast over the public airways. Many MANY years ago, Bob Hope quipped "If women's skirts get any shorter, they'll need two permanents." That so violated the cultural sensibilities of that time that they immediately took the program off the air. These days that wouldn't even make people blink. Still full frontal nudity is not acceptable in prime time and continues to be taboo no matter how suggestive the manner of dress, language, subject matter etc. or how skimpy the bikini on Baywatch or whatever. So it seems really silly but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

There is some programming that simply is not suitable for young children and parents should be able to allow their child to see a selected program without worrying about getting blindsided by unexpected obscenity, vulgarity, or even soft pornographic images. So I am not opposed to some censorship of material during prime time free broadcasts. Lets keep the gratuitous adult sex and violence and material unsutiable for children on cable where parents can block it if they want to.

The internet is a lot tougher, and I don't mind at all making filters available so that parents can block objectionable sites from their children's computers there too. I don't object at all employees not being able to use the internet for surfing non-work-related sites while they are at work.

I still have a HUGE problem with any government agency deciding what material is too 'conservative' for their employees to see, however. I would have an equal problem with the government choosing what is too 'liberal' for their employees to see.

I would think that is something everybody should have a problem with.

 

[George Costanza]

Can we do it without evoking "Foxfyre's "W" Law?"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/120997-foxfyres-law-3.html

My post here is in response to both the OP of yours as well as other threads I have seen on the subject of the alleged threat of censorship under the Obama administration. Your OP does not specifically mention the Obama adminstration, but it does refer a number of times to "the government" and, last time I looked, the current "government" is the Obama administration.

As such, I merely wanted to point out that it was the Bush administration that imposed a very real and very heavy policy of censorship which has only now been stricken by a federal court in operation during the Obama administration.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can we do it without evoking "Foxfyre's "W" Law?"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/120997-foxfyres-law-3.html

My post here is in response to both the OP of yours as well as other threads I have seen on the subject of the alleged threat of censorship under the Obama administration. Your OP does not specifically mention the Obama adminstration, but it does refer a number of times to "the government" and, last time I looked, the current "government" is the Obama administration.

As such, I merely wanted to point out that it was the Bush administration that imposed a very real and very heavy policy of censorship which has only now been stricken by a federal court in operation during the Obama administration.

What difference does it make what the Bush administration did about anything as to whether the circumstances illustrated in the OP are or are not an acceptable policy? Why bring up the Bush Administration at all unless the intent is to deflect from the policy now and keep the focus (and blame) on them? And why emphasize the Bush administration and ignore all the censorship of what is and and is not allowed in public for more than 200 years?

If you wish to debate whether whatever censorship was or was not appropriate during the Bush Admnistration, I'm sure that would make an interesting thread to many.

The thesis of this thread is whether any government agency in ANY administration is out of line restricting its employees from viewing conservative internet sites but not restricting liberal ones or whether it would be out of line to restrict liberal ones and not conservative ones.

Could we just focus on that please?

 

[George Costanza]

What difference does it make what the Bush administration did about anything as to whether the circumstances illustrated in the OP are or are not an acceptable policy? Why bring up the Bush Administration at all unless the intent is to deflect from the policy now and keep the focus (and blame) on them? And why emphasize the Bush administration and ignore all the censorship of what is and and is not allowed in public for more than 200 years?

If you wish to debate whether whatever censorship was or was not appropriate during the Bush Admnistration, I'm sure that would make an interesting thread to many.

The thesis of this thread is whether any government agency in ANY administration is out of line restricting its employees from viewing conservative internet sites but not restricting liberal ones or whether it would be out of line to restrict liberal ones and not conservative ones.

Could we just focus on that please?

Fine - provided I don't read any more threads about "Obama censorship." Until that time, I think pointing out that other, REPUBLICAN administrations have acutally IMPOSED censorship, is not out of line.

I recognize your point that censorship, per se, is a concept unique and apart from any given administration. I agree with that.

But YOU need to understand the purpose of my post - which was less to discuss the merits or lack of merit, of the censorship mentioned in your OP, and more to point out that the Bush administration actually imposed a form of censorship, while such has not been done (yet) by the Obama administration.

To this extent, I must plead guilty to deviating a tad from the main thrust of the OP, but I submit it is close enough to the issue, to not be that much of a deviation.

 

[Foxfyre]

What difference does it make what the Bush administration did about anything as to whether the circumstances illustrated in the OP are or are not an acceptable policy? Why bring up the Bush Administration at all unless the intent is to deflect from the policy now and keep the focus (and blame) on them? And why emphasize the Bush administration and ignore all the censorship of what is and and is not allowed in public for more than 200 years?

If you wish to debate whether whatever censorship was or was not appropriate during the Bush Admnistration, I'm sure that would make an interesting thread to many.

The thesis of this thread is whether any government agency in ANY administration is out of line restricting its employees from viewing conservative internet sites but not restricting liberal ones or whether it would be out of line to restrict liberal ones and not conservative ones.

Could we just focus on that please?

Fine - provided I don't read any more threads about "Obama censorship." Until that time, I think pointing out that other, REPUBLICAN administrations have acutally IMPOSED censorship, is not out of line.

I recognize your point that censorship, per se, is a concept unique and apart from any given administration. I agree with that.

But YOU need to understand the purpose of my post - which was less to discuss the merits or lack of merit, of the censorship mentioned in your OP, and more to point out that the Bush administration actually imposed a form of censorship, while such has not been done (yet) by the Obama administration.

To this extent, I must plead guilty to deviating a tad from the main thrust of the OP, but I submit it is close enough to the issue, to not be that much of a deviation.

Not the same thing at all from how I look at it. Perhaps you can point to any policy in any Bush Administration agency that targeted an ideological perspective for censorship while excluding the opposite perspective from such censorship? Perhaps you can identify any Bush Administration censorship that came that close to general brain washing?

If you can, then your comparisons are appropriate so long as you denounce both equally. I assure you that I would be denouncing both equally though I am unaware of any comparable policy in the Bush Administration or ANY Administration ever until this one.

And if you think this is no big deal, perhaps you could tell me at what point in the dinner it is appropriate to object in that parable of the dinner roll?

 

[Gadawg73]

According to people I know who work in government offices, this has been going on for at least ten years.

Why is it sudenly a problem?

Don't employers all reserve the right to limit what people can read online at work?

Don't ya know?
Because now the Kenyan born Muslim that wants to team up with Castro is President.
No wonder pro wrasslin is so popular.

 

[Foxfyre]

According to people I know who work in government offices, this has been going on for at least ten years.

Why is it sudenly a problem?

Don't employers all reserve the right to limit what people can read online at work?

Don't ya know?
Because now the Kenyan born Muslim that wants to team up with Castro is President.
No wonder pro wrasslin is so popular.

Oh come on. He's gonna think you're serious. You can't be tongue-in-cheek safely with stuff like that here.

But our friend obviously is missing the point that nobody, and I do mean nobody, has questioned the right, ability, or prudence of employers who limit what internet access their employees will have at work. He fails to see the distinction between that and blocking access to an ideological perspective.

Of course so far NONE of the leftists have been willing to acknowledge or address that particular issue.

 

[Gadawg73]

According to people I know who work in government offices, this has been going on for at least ten years.

Why is it sudenly a problem?

Don't employers all reserve the right to limit what people can read online at work?

Don't ya know?
Because now the Kenyan born Muslim that wants to team up with Castro is President.
No wonder pro wrasslin is so popular.

Oh come on. He's gonna think you're serious. You can't be tongue-in-cheek safely with stuff like that here.

But our friend obviously is missing the point that nobody, and I do mean nobody, has questioned the right, ability, or prudence of employers who limit what internet access their employees will have at work. He fails to see the distinction between that and blocking access to an ideological perspective.

Of course so far NONE of the leftists have been willing to acknowledge or address that particular issue.

Righties are the kings of censorship.

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't ya know?
Because now the Kenyan born Muslim that wants to team up with Castro is President.
No wonder pro wrasslin is so popular.

Oh come on. He's gonna think you're serious. You can't be tongue-in-cheek safely with stuff like that here.

But our friend obviously is missing the point that nobody, and I do mean nobody, has questioned the right, ability, or prudence of employers who limit what internet access their employees will have at work. He fails to see the distinction between that and blocking access to an ideological perspective.

Of course so far NONE of the leftists have been willing to acknowledge or address that particular issue.

Righties are the kings of censorship.

Perhaps in those things that are obscene, crude, or vulgar.

Not so much as the Left in things that are politically incorrect.

I had a feminist threaten to sue me one time because our personnel manual had a couple of male pronouns in it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Oh come on. He's gonna think you're serious. You can't be tongue-in-cheek safely with stuff like that here.

But our friend obviously is missing the point that nobody, and I do mean nobody, has questioned the right, ability, or prudence of employers who limit what internet access their employees will have at work. He fails to see the distinction between that and blocking access to an ideological perspective.

Of course so far NONE of the leftists have been willing to acknowledge or address that particular issue.

Righties are the kings of censorship.

Perhaps in those things that are obscene, crude, or vulgar.

Not so much as the Left in things that are politically incorrect.

I had a feminist threaten to sue me one time because our personnel manual had a couple of male pronouns in it.

LOL, fox, things that are obscene, crude or vulgar TO YOU may not be obscene, crude or vulgar to the next guy.
Same with things that are politically incorrect.
You need a thorough understanding of the meaning of censorship.

 

[Immanuel]

Righties are the kings of censorship.

Perhaps in those things that are obscene, crude, or vulgar.

Not so much as the Left in things that are politically incorrect.

I had a feminist threaten to sue me one time because our personnel manual had a couple of male pronouns in it.

LOL, fox, things that are obscene, crude or vulgar TO YOU may not be obscene, crude or vulgar to the next guy.
Same with things that are politically incorrect.
You need a thorough understanding of the meaning of censorship.

But my opinion is the only one that counts... at least in my house.

For instance: naked guys on tv... No! Naked ladies... um, not so obscene.

Immie

 

[Gadawg73]

Perhaps in those things that are obscene, crude, or vulgar.

Not so much as the Left in things that are politically incorrect.

I had a feminist threaten to sue me one time because our personnel manual had a couple of male pronouns in it.

LOL, fox, things that are obscene, crude or vulgar TO YOU may not be obscene, crude or vulgar to the next guy.
Same with things that are politically incorrect.
You need a thorough understanding of the meaning of censorship.

But my opinion is the only one that counts... at least in my house.

For instance: naked guys on tv... No! Naked ladies... um, not so obscene.

Immie

Naked ladies are ladies that have no clothes on.
Nekkid ladies are ladies with no clothes on that are up to something!
I prefer them nekkid.

 

[Immanuel]

LOL, fox, things that are obscene, crude or vulgar TO YOU may not be obscene, crude or vulgar to the next guy.
Same with things that are politically incorrect.
You need a thorough understanding of the meaning of censorship.

But my opinion is the only one that counts... at least in my house.

For instance: naked guys on tv... No! Naked ladies... um, not so obscene.

Immie

Naked ladies are ladies that have no clothes on.
Nekkid ladies are ladies with no clothes on that are up to something!
I prefer them nekkid.

Okay, me too, but not when the kids are present.

Immie

 

[George Costanza]

I do believe the current administation will do whatever they can to gain control of the internet.

I would suspect that Glen Beck, Hannity and Ann Coulter share your belief here.

What's your point?

 

[George Costanza]

I agree with the OP's point. I suppose an employer's blocking certain sites might be considered justifiable. Porn sites, gaming sites, chat/messaging, etc., -fine. I can see a rational reason for such action on the part of an employer who wants to get a full day's work out of his/its employees.

I can see NO rational reason for blocking sites that contain "controversial" political opinions.

I'm not sure that we can jump from this to the conclusion that "the government" (i.e., the Obama administration) is necessarily in favor of this particular, narrow action on the part of TSA or that such will become established policy for all government agencies.

Frankly, I don't think this present action by TSA would survive an ACLU lawsuit, if it came to that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Righties are the kings of censorship.

Perhaps in those things that are obscene, crude, or vulgar.

Not so much as the Left in things that are politically incorrect.

I had a feminist threaten to sue me one time because our personnel manual had a couple of male pronouns in it.

LOL, fox, things that are obscene, crude or vulgar TO YOU may not be obscene, crude or vulgar to the next guy.
Same with things that are politically incorrect.
You need a thorough understanding of the meaning of censorship.

I believe I probably have as thorough understanding of the meaning of censorship as you do.

And I also understand the difference between different types of censorship, and I know that understanding or recognizing the kinds of things that are censored by different groups is not making a judgment about whether such censorship should be objectionable or censored by everybody.

Or censored by anybody for that matter.

Actually I think private citizens should have the right to censor anything they want.

Government censorship is a whole different thing though and must be very carefully managed and judged by all lest we inadvertently forfeit constitutionally protected freedoms.