Tuesday, 18 July 2006
State's Blog Ban Continues to Get Press
« Waterfront Attempts False Sign To Keep People From Fountains | Main | Blog Story Continues Unabated »But Fletcher's decision to block some political blogs and not others raises constitutional issues.
Government computers are subject to constitutional restraints, and discriminating based on a viewpoint isn't allowed, said Bob Corn-Revere, a First Amendment lawyer based in Washington, D.C.
"The fact that the new policy seems to, with the precision of a laser beam, pick out some news Web sites and not others is a very troubling thing for the state," Corn-Revere said.
First off, I love how the story makes it sound like Fletcher's "personal decision" on which sites to block. I am sure he has no idea what sites are blocked. Secondly, I love how they talk about constitutional rights and how they are cherry picking sites to block. Do these people have any idea how technology works. The sites picked are done through the filtering software. And they continue to add new sites as they deem then inappropriate for state employees. In fact most of the top conservative bloggers are banned by the state. Seems like an across the board policy to me.
The reality of the situation is that it is impossible to ban everything... you just have to keep adding new sites as they are discovered. This is probably being done by review of the proxy logs to see what sites people are hitting. I know that is how I would do it.
What infuriates me about this continuing series of articles is how Mark Nickolas, who managed Democrat Ben Chandler's 2003 campaign against Fletcher, continues to get free advertising fpr his web site everyday when a new story is printed.
But now we get to the nut of the story.The fact that the lawsuit comes from Nickolas and not a state employee troubles Jon Fleischaker, a Louisville attorney who represents the Kentucky Press Association, The Courier-Journal and other media outlets.
"Nickolas is saying that he has a right, by electronic means, to get into all government offices," Fleischaker said. "I think that's a real stretch."
If Nickolas has that right, then everybody else does too, he said.
"It would effectively deprive government of any chance to restrict messages of any type that had content to its employees," he said.Alvin Goldman, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, disagrees with that assessment. The government doesn't have to provide access to the Internet for its employees, but once it does, it has two choices: Prohibit personal use of the Internet, or allow it, as long as it is not excessive.
Most private employers choose the latter, said Goldman, who specializes in labor law and has taught constitutional law for many years. Prohibiting all personal use is bad for morale and difficult to enforce, Goldman said.
Fleishchaker hits the nail on the head. Nickolas believes he has a right to be heard by every state employee during work hours. That is the problem. Employees should be "working" and not reading opinion pieces. They still have the right to read Nickolas's rubbage after work hours.
Alvin Goldman on the other hand doesn't get the problem. Of course most companies allow personal use unless it is not excessive. Because they have the ability to "fire" employees. The state does not have that luxury. Therefore they are forced to attempt measures to cut down on personal use in what appears to be a fair way.
This is an amazing non story that is only being pimped because it make Fletcher "look like a dictatorial leader" when all he is doing is trying to improve employee productivity.
