Internet Censorship - First Shot Across the Bow?

[Foxfyre]

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.

You could be right, but I think it would survive an ACLU lawsuit because it is within an employer's prerogative to control the use of the employer's computers in the employer's office. Not that the ACLU is likely to bring a lawsuit against any agency in the Obama Administration anyway.

And I didn't jump to a conclusion that this WILL become an established government policy, but I am pretty skittish when it comes to an overreaching government these days.

Again, I am pretty sure that you guys on the Left would not be so complacent or unconcerned if this was the Bush administration and we found that a government agency was restricting their employees from viewing only liberal opinion sites while conservative ones were not blocked.

And if that happened in conjunction with credible rumors that the Administration was consdiering ways to control and regulate the whole internet, do you not think you on the Left would not see that as sinister? Even dangerous? Possibly even the first step in controlling content of information made available at all levels of government including the schools?

Again, is it not best to stop them at the dinner roll?

 

[R.C. Christian]

I find it alarming that the jackbooted retards in the TSA have time to get paid to surf the internet at our expense.

 

[Foxfyre]

I find it alarming that the jackbooted retards in the TSA have time to get paid to surf the internet at our expense.

Well there's that too, but I can see all sorts of reason that internet access would be essential to all sorts of operations, even government operations. Especially a security operation. We couldn't have run our small business without internet access the last several years as most of our clients insisted that we do business via internet rather than by snail mail or fax or other means.

But I don't want the government messing with the minds of government employees or school children or anybody else.

I read Orwell's "1984". Couldn't he have had a field day and written an even more interesting book if he had known there would be an internet?

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

You could be right, but I think it would survive an ACLU lawsuit because it is within an employer's prerogative to control the use of the employer's computers in the employer's office. Not that the ACLU is likely to bring a lawsuit against any agency in the Obama Administration anyway.

And I didn't jump to a conclusion that this WILL become an established government policy, but I am pretty skittish when it comes to an overreaching government these days.

Again, I am pretty sure that you guys on the Left would not be so complacent or unconcerned if this was the Bush administration and we found that a government agency was restricting their employees from viewing only liberal opinion sites while conservative ones were not blocked.

And if that happened in conjunction with credible rumors that the Administration was consdiering ways to control and regulate the whole internet, do you not think you on the Left would not see that as sinister? Even dangerous? Possibly even the first step in controlling content of information made available at all levels of government including the schools?

Again, is it not best to stop them at the dinner roll?

The ACLU does not endorse politicians and is not into partisan politics. Their positions are based on the Constitution, not politics.
I detest many of their decisions. However, a true patriot and lover of FREEDOM seeks to protect the rights of those he may despise the most.
Something partisan polarized Americans of the day from both parties will never understand. They take THEIR freedom for granted.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

You could be right, but I think it would survive an ACLU lawsuit because it is within an employer's prerogative to control the use of the employer's computers in the employer's office. Not that the ACLU is likely to bring a lawsuit against any agency in the Obama Administration anyway.

And I didn't jump to a conclusion that this WILL become an established government policy, but I am pretty skittish when it comes to an overreaching government these days.

Again, I am pretty sure that you guys on the Left would not be so complacent or unconcerned if this was the Bush administration and we found that a government agency was restricting their employees from viewing only liberal opinion sites while conservative ones were not blocked.

And if that happened in conjunction with credible rumors that the Administration was consdiering ways to control and regulate the whole internet, do you not think you on the Left would not see that as sinister? Even dangerous? Possibly even the first step in controlling content of information made available at all levels of government including the schools?

Again, is it not best to stop them at the dinner roll?

The ACLU does not endorse politicians and is not into partisan politics. Their positions are based on the Constitution, not politics.
I detest many of their decisions. However, a true patriot and lover of FREEDOM seeks to protect the rights of those he may despise the most.
Something partisan polarized Americans of the day from both parties will never understand. They take THEIR freedom for granted.

The ACLU uses more subtle methods to 'endorse' politicians, but you are correct that they do not openly endorse any politician or political party. And they do use the Constitution as the underpinning of their arguments. However, I no longer believe their motives are to protect the rights of much of anybody but rather they often trample on rights in order to enrich the ACLU. I have little respect left for the organization, but that is a subject for another thread. I might start one so we don't derail this one.

The issue here is whether the rights of the employees have been violated by the 'no conservative opinion sites' rule at the TSA. George thinks they might be. I think they probably have not. Regardless an employer does have the right to set the rules for how the company computers can be used.

My concern looks past that as to underlying motive. And I don't find much motive that is encouraging or commendable or appropriate for a government office when it restricts conservative opinion sites but not liberal ones.

And again I think our leftist sisters and brothers here would not be as complacent if it was liberal opinion sites that were restricted but not conservative ones. Most especially if it was under a Republican administration.

 

[Ringel05]

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?

One company I contracted to blocked everything except their own website, including e-mail other than that all that was available was their intranet.

 

[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?

One company I contracted to blocked everything except their own website, including e-mail other than that all that was available was their intranet.

I don't have any problem with that. I am of the opinion that such rules violate nobody's rights and short of violating unalienable rights of the employees, as far as i am concerned, the employer sets the rules. I wouldn't stand for it for myself because I am a free spirit who needs to be trusted and given a free rein by my employers, but that is my choice and I don't require that anybody else accommodate it.

Again the problem I see is not that there are rules re use of the company computers.

The problem I see is that in this case, the employer is allowing employees to log into liberal opinion sites, whatever those are, but is restricting conservative opinion sites.

This sounds an awful lot like information control or brain washing to me.

And I am 100% opposed to government engaging in that at any level.

 

[Gadawg73]

You could be right, but I think it would survive an ACLU lawsuit because it is within an employer's prerogative to control the use of the employer's computers in the employer's office. Not that the ACLU is likely to bring a lawsuit against any agency in the Obama Administration anyway.

And I didn't jump to a conclusion that this WILL become an established government policy, but I am pretty skittish when it comes to an overreaching government these days.

Again, I am pretty sure that you guys on the Left would not be so complacent or unconcerned if this was the Bush administration and we found that a government agency was restricting their employees from viewing only liberal opinion sites while conservative ones were not blocked.

And if that happened in conjunction with credible rumors that the Administration was consdiering ways to control and regulate the whole internet, do you not think you on the Left would not see that as sinister? Even dangerous? Possibly even the first step in controlling content of information made available at all levels of government including the schools?

Again, is it not best to stop them at the dinner roll?

The ACLU does not endorse politicians and is not into partisan politics. Their positions are based on the Constitution, not politics.
I detest many of their decisions. However, a true patriot and lover of FREEDOM seeks to protect the rights of those he may despise the most.
Something partisan polarized Americans of the day from both parties will never understand. They take THEIR freedom for granted.

The ACLU uses more subtle methods to 'endorse' politicians, but you are correct that they do not openly endorse any politician or political party. And they do use the Constitution as the underpinning of their arguments. However, I no longer believe their motives are to protect the rights of much of anybody but rather they often trample on rights in order to enrich the ACLU. I have little respect left for the organization, but that is a subject for another thread. I might start one so we don't derail this one.

The issue here is whether the rights of the employees have been violated by the 'no conservative opinion sites' rule at the TSA. George thinks they might be. I think they probably have not. Regardless an employer does have the right to set the rules for how the company computers can be used.

My concern looks past that as to underlying motive. And I don't find much motive that is encouraging or commendable or appropriate for a government office when it restricts conservative opinion sites but not liberal ones.

And again I think our leftist sisters and brothers here would not be as complacent if it was liberal opinion sites that were restricted but not conservative ones. Most especially if it was under a Republican administration.

What? Enrich?
Many of their members volunteer their time. Their motive is civil liberties. They have represented the Klan and Nazis. You claim that is leaning liberal? LOL
Same old right wing anti ACLU hyperbole. All fiction.
The ACLU is the first to show up when cities and municipalities pass ordinances banning street preaching. ACLU defends the street preachers in court and over turns the bans on street preaching. Jerry Falwell hired ACLU to fight for his rights with his church.
The ACLU has been on the side of protecting religion in many cases. You won't hear the right wiong clowns state those facts ever. All you hear is the ridiculous crap and lies that ACLU is anti religion.Nothing could be further from the absolute truth.
Those that pick and choose what side should get protections from the Constitution take for granted their own freedom.

 

[Foxfyre]

The ACLU does not endorse politicians and is not into partisan politics. Their positions are based on the Constitution, not politics.
I detest many of their decisions. However, a true patriot and lover of FREEDOM seeks to protect the rights of those he may despise the most.
Something partisan polarized Americans of the day from both parties will never understand. They take THEIR freedom for granted.

The ACLU uses more subtle methods to 'endorse' politicians, but you are correct that they do not openly endorse any politician or political party. And they do use the Constitution as the underpinning of their arguments. However, I no longer believe their motives are to protect the rights of much of anybody but rather they often trample on rights in order to enrich the ACLU. I have little respect left for the organization, but that is a subject for another thread. I might start one so we don't derail this one.

The issue here is whether the rights of the employees have been violated by the 'no conservative opinion sites' rule at the TSA. George thinks they might be. I think they probably have not. Regardless an employer does have the right to set the rules for how the company computers can be used.

My concern looks past that as to underlying motive. And I don't find much motive that is encouraging or commendable or appropriate for a government office when it restricts conservative opinion sites but not liberal ones.

And again I think our leftist sisters and brothers here would not be as complacent if it was liberal opinion sites that were restricted but not conservative ones. Most especially if it was under a Republican administration.

What? Enrich?
Many of their members volunteer their time. Their motive is civil liberties. They have represented the Klan and Nazis. You claim that is leaning liberal? LOL
Same old right wing anti ACLU hyperbole. All fiction.
The ACLU is the first to show up when cities and municipalities pass ordinances banning street preaching. ACLU defends the street preachers in court and over turns the bans on street preaching. Jerry Falwell hired ACLU to fight for his rights with his church.
The ACLU has been on the side of protecting religion in many cases. You won't hear the right wiong clowns state those facts ever. All you hear is the ridiculous crap and lies that ACLU is anti religion.Nothing could be further from the absolute truth.
Those that pick and choose what side should get protections from the Constitution take for granted their own freedom.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear Gadawg. I do NOT wish to derail this thread by making it a discussion of the ACLU. Later on when I have some time to spend with it, I'll start a thread on the ACLU because I think a lot of misconceptions do need to be cleared up both pro and con the ACLU. I have to get off here in a few and get ready for a major dinner party at my house tonight.

So for now please focus on the topic of this thread as to whether it is appropriate for any government agency to attempt to control what their employees can or cannot see based on nothing more than ideology.

 

[Ringel05]

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?



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?

One company I contracted to blocked everything except their own website, including e-mail other than that all that was available was their intranet.

I don't have any problem with that. I am of the opinion that such rules violate nobody's rights and short of violating unalienable rights of the employees, as far as i am concerned, the employer sets the rules. I wouldn't stand for it for myself because I am a free spirit who needs to be trusted and given a free rein by my employers, but that is my choice and I don't require that anybody else accommodate it.

Again the problem I see is not that there are rules re use of the company computers.

The problem I see is that in this case, the employer is allowing employees to log into liberal opinion sites, whatever those are, but is restricting conservative opinion sites.

This sounds an awful lot like information control or brain washing to me.

And I am 100% opposed to government engaging in that at any level.

If that's true then it is illegal censorship and needs to be challenged in court.

 

[Foxfyre]

One company I contracted to blocked everything except their own website, including e-mail other than that all that was available was their intranet.

I don't have any problem with that. I am of the opinion that such rules violate nobody's rights and short of violating unalienable rights of the employees, as far as i am concerned, the employer sets the rules. I wouldn't stand for it for myself because I am a free spirit who needs to be trusted and given a free rein by my employers, but that is my choice and I don't require that anybody else accommodate it.

Again the problem I see is not that there are rules re use of the company computers.

The problem I see is that in this case, the employer is allowing employees to log into liberal opinion sites, whatever those are, but is restricting conservative opinion sites.

This sounds an awful lot like information control or brain washing to me.

And I am 100% opposed to government engaging in that at any level.

If that's true then it is illegal censorship and needs to be challenged in court.

George Constanza thought it might be illegal too, but I personally don't see it though I am open to having my mind changed if you guys can come up with a good argument for why it is illegal.

If the employees were forbidden to look at conservative opinion sites on their OWN time, I would agree that the policy would be a violation of their rights.

But I am of the opinion that any employer can set the rules for how the employees use their time or how the office computers will be used however irrational those rules might be.

My concern here is of a far more subtle nature than that and is based on our Constitutional concept that our government works for us rather than any notion that we work for the government. And we should see it as dangerous and unacceptable that any government agency would attempt any form of mind control on anybody.