Skip to main content

Kentucky has one of the most corrupt administrations in the nation, with Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher and his pals facing new indictments almost daily.

So how do they respond to the growing crisis? They literally ban the Bluegrass Report from every state-owned computer.

I've gotten a handful of e-mails this morning already that BluegrassReport.org has apparently been blocked to state computers by the Commonwealth Office of Technology. Readers in three different cabinets have e-mailed to tell me they get a "blocked" message when they try to access the site [...]

I'm getting flooded with e-mails and a couple of phone calls from readers in other cabinets -- and other elected constitutional offices -- that the site has been blocked. But what's interesting is there's no problem allowing state workers to access the Republican Party of Kentucky or Fox News or Drudge Report or at least one conservative Kentucky blog. Pathetic [...]

Must be a coincidence that the banning of BGR happens the day after a front-page New York Times story critical of the administration which contained not only a quote from me but also mentioned this site. Coincidence, of course.

Wonkette has also been blocked. As has a bunch of other liberal bloggers on the blogspot domain.

Site owner Mark Nickolas has already started doing media. This will be a big story in Kentucky, and should be a big story nationally.

Republicans sure liked it better when they controlled the partisan media.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:12 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What are theyt hiding from? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Eikyu Saha
    Guilty conscience?

    We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

    by Fabian on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:13:58 AM PDT

  •  that's a *little* Orwellian... n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dittoz, greenearth, jpfdeuce

    "our politics are our deepest form of expression: they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future." - paul wellstone

    by liberalsouth on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:19:06 AM PDT

  •  have conservative websites been blocked? (6+ / 0-)

    or is it only liberal leaning blogs??

    and what is the law in kentucky about using state owned conputer networks to access websites that are not directly related to the work you are doing?

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:21:50 AM PDT

  •  For Fletcher, no news... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PanzerMensch, greenearth

    ... is good news.

    hink

  •  The Outer Limits (6+ / 0-)

    This is what ending "Net neutrality" is all about folks. The Feds under these fascists want a Chinese style Net. The net will end up like the opening sequence of "Outer Limits" WE CONTROL THE SOUND , WE CONTROL THE PICTURE ETC.... Welcome to the NWO!

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:24:14 AM PDT

    •  Nah (0+ / 0-)

      These are government computers.  They can block the entire internet if they so choose.

      This is much ado about not much, methinks, espeically if conservative blogs are also blocked (looks like all/many political blogs are blocked, but official party sites or news organizations (Drudge is closer to a news organization than a blog) aren't).

      •  That's not true at all (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenearth

        The government can only place restrictions on websites in a way that is neutral to the viewpoint or subject matter of the websites.

        So just because they can not have internet at all doesn't mean that they can deny access to website that espouse liberal opinions, or even websites that express opinions on politics, altogether.

        If what has been described is true, this is a classic and indisputable violation of Free Speech.

        •  They blocked at least one Republican blog (0+ / 0-)

          Heck, they may have blocked all blogs (or attempted to), whether or not they were related to politics or not.  This may be more about blogs in general than politics.

          I see nothing here that indicates bias, unless somebody can find a right wing/Republican blog (Fox News and Drudge and GOP.com are not blogs) that is not blocked.

  •  which computers are 'state-owned'? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dittoz, deha, greenearth, Eikyu Saha

    those in government offices, certainly.  But does this also mean computers in public libraries and public schools?

    •  Computers in libraries (3+ / 0-)

      are not state owned.  Not sure how schools are viewed, likely owned by the local school district.

      Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility. --Ambrose Bierce

      by JaketheSnake on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:28:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  School Computers (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        katchen, murrayewv, greenearth

        Are indeed, owned by the school district--the funding for them comes from a number of sources and sometimes computers are simply donated--

        having said that in KY, those types of things are blocked all across the board and the reason why is the focus is eduction--

        teachers can email each other, or in the school system, and maybe personal outside, but at the same time, there are disciplanry actions taken for any type of 'hanky panky' like chain letters, solicitations, etc. So much is blocked by the school system and no one really gets upset because it is not political but along the same guidelines as parental controls already in most homes, as well as the recognition that teachers are, after all, at work!

      •  I imagine the 'state owned' computers (4+ / 0-)

        refers to any that are on the specific server that Fletcher has control over, probably the executive/administrative departments for the state of KY

        General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

        by patsprouseyo on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:54:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's a good question and a scary one (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boadicea, awakenow, greenearth

      This kind of selective blocking disturbs me.  It's censorship unless every site not strictly related to the performance of one's duty is also blocked.

      I have no problem with employers prohibiting their staff from accessing internet sites not specifically related to their jobs while they're on the clock.  Hell, I don't let my students browse around in class when we're doing something else.  If employees are allowed to use company computers on breaks and lunch hours, that's a different story.

      However, when certain sites are allowed while their politically opposite counterparts are blocked, we are talking some serious censorship here.

      But really, even though this angers me, I also find a little bit of encouragement.  It suggests to me that the right knows how tenuous their hold is on the hearts and minds of Americans.  Censorship is always the tyrant's answer to frightening things, such as anything that threatens to expose his lies.

      They are freakin' scared that the American people might find out what's really going on.

      -8.38, -7.54 "...to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all." - Elie Wiesel

      by deha on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:40:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  state colleges (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth

      Nearly all computers in use at state colleges are owned by the state. As I recall, there was a case in Virginia where the state passed a law prohibiting "obscenity" on state-owned computers. A professor at a state-college filed suit because it interfered with academic freedom and prevented him from engaging in research. When I was in college I ran a small computer lab and there was at least one occasion where a student used a computer (owned by the state!) to access porn for academic reasons - it is a totally legitimate argument.

      Howard Dean has a posse (buy my t-shirts so I can afford YearlyKos!)

      by Jett on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:59:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Take, for example, Gannon/Guckert (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shapeshifter, Fabian, greenearth

        Sometimes research takes you in unexpected directions, too.  The prime example is the investigation into the journalistic background of WH press corp stooge Jeff Gannon, who turned out to be a male prostitute advertising his services on various internet sites.  Maybe you shouldn't be researching Gannon/Guckert at work, but then again, maybe your work involves obtaining background info on companies and individuals, and who knows where that will lead - you don't have the full story if you can't access the full web.

        -5.88, -6.31 | "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

        by milton333 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:34:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  college computers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shapeshifter, greenearth

        I work for the Community College system in Kentucky and they don't block anything, I know this because I work in a computer lab and students can and do look up anything including porn, but it's rather obvious when they're doing tha

    •  State-owned (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth

      Would mean any computer that is controlled or owned by an arm of the state or local government. You don't have to be "property of the state of Kentucky" to qualify. You can be "property of the Louisville School district" and you are still state owned for th epurposes of the First Amendment.

  •  Increasing internet censorship (18+ / 0-)

    The LA Times is also censoring newsroom access to the internet. This seems to be a growing trend in our country as government and corporations merge. Having governments do it against political opponents is a new low, but it's also disturbing to see corporate ownership restrict what journalists have access to.

    Are you shaking or biting the invisible hand?

    by puppethead on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:25:32 AM PDT

  •  First the Republicans take away your right ... (5+ / 0-)
    ... to free speech.  Then, they take away your guns and outlaw hunting.  Then, they only allow you to go to state run churches.  Smelling the coffee this morning.

    In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

    by yet another liberal on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:27:00 AM PDT

  •  what is going on with the censorship of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth, vox humana

    sites to troops overseas?  a few good diaries and news stories on this a while back but nothing of late.

    Double or nothing is not a foreign policy. - Josh Marshall

    by sedrunsic on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:27:05 AM PDT

    •  Juan Cole's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shapeshifter

      Blog was blocked last year.

    •  The story faded away (8+ / 0-)

      Slashdot people debunked much of that story. It looks like sites that took up a bunch of bandwidth or were frequently accessed were blocked from work computers to save bandwidth and reduce loafing while on the military's clock and the military's computer and Internet access. There were both liberal and conservative sites that were restricted.

      See the message from Brian at this link

      http://forums.bluelemur.com/...

      He's a military guy in Iraq and says that most of the sites work that supposedly were blocked, but that sites that are blocked are blocked because of bandwidth issues.

      http://www.homelandstupidity.us/...

      Here's another link that details how it is not based upon content but based upon fitting into certain categories that causes a site to be blocked for the military.

      That seems to be different for the Blue Grass Report. It looks like they were singled out with a site-specific block. It may be that with the mention yesterday in the New York Times, their site got lots of extra hits from government computers, and there may be a 'ceiling' that was broached that made the banning happen.

      I don't think it's right to block this site just because it got a lot of hits one day because it got mentioned in the New York Times. It is horribly wrong if it got blocked because it is against the current corrupt Administration in Kentucky.

  •  does that make Kentucky an ally of the Chinese (9+ / 0-)

    Sounds like a great ad:  Kentucky Republican Governor cooperates with Chinese Communist on Censorship.  

    Or maybe it is just The Great (censorship) Wall of Kentucky

  •  Another Prime Example (6+ / 0-)

    of Republicans imploding when faced with the actual task of governing.  Is it any wonder that Gov. Ernie Fletcher has the third-worst approval ratings of any governor in the nation?  Only Bob "I Was Convicted While in Office" Taft and Frank "What's Wrong With Nepotism" Murkowski fared worse, and they'll both be out of office by year's end.  Fletcher will no doubt follow them out the door in 2007.

    The NYT article was particularly brutal.  There was hardly a single passage that put Fletcher in a positive light, while many paragraphs openly mocked him and his troubles.  It's the kind of piece that the right will use to "prove" that there really is a massive liberal bias in the media.  Of course, this is one of those comparatively rare occasions when the reporter (Ian Urbina) and his editors at the Times didn't attempt to achieve an unnatural -- and totally unwarranted -- balance, because in this instance, none was called for.

  •  Well (7+ / 0-)

    It is the government's computers. In theory they are to be used for work purposes, not political blogging. That being said, if they are going to block political sites, they should be bipartisan.

    •  Um, no... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xebecs

      The computers belong to the people of the State of Kentucky.

      "[A] 'Sharecropper's Society' [is] precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us." - Warren Buffet

      by RichM on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:34:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

        Computers are work are meant to be used for business purposes, not for personal use. Most companies generally don't care, though, as long as an employee's work is done on time and company assets aren't put at risk. But the first purpose of a computer at an office, especially one paid for by taxpayer dollars, is for work-related use. Thus the Commonwealth of KY is well within its rights to restrict personal use of its governmental computers.

    •  I agree with jiacinto (0+ / 0-)

      He who owns the Gold, rules.

    •  strange (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jett
      Government 'work' is to limit what what you can read.  Darn, I guess I never understood American values after all.

      In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

      by yet another liberal on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:43:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  good point? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobbobgirl

        It may very well be part of someone's legitmate job duties to read a website like this. I had a friend who worked for the AG and part of her job was to read local news sites (including blogs) and create summaries of them.

        Not sure if you were actually implying this, but it seems that way!

        Howard Dean has a posse (buy my t-shirts so I can afford YearlyKos!)

        by Jett on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:48:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  job duties for little kiddies (3+ / 0-)
          Do not include reading political opinions the king disapproves of.

          All self-respecting rulers need to control ideas.  That means book bannings, and nowadays, blocking of internet sites critical of our rulers.

          "You have job duties" is simply the latest excuse from the book banners.  But at least it's an effective way of throwing their own doo-doo back in their face.

          Book banners make me ill.

          In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

          by yet another liberal on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:59:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  working for the man (6+ / 0-)

      My philosophy on this is that filtering is a waste of time and money and causes more trouble than it is worth. Even assuming it is legitimate for them to say "you may not visit these specific websites from your state-owned computer", implementing that policy by filtering is stupid. It's not hard to get around the filters - in theory people visiting "bad" websites should be a discipline issue between the worker and their supervisor. Censorware is a technical fix to a non-technical problem: discipline. What filters like these are really about is totalitarianism. Every single time people have reverse-engineered the filter lists they find that legitimate websites have been "miscategorized". The rhetoric of those who control the filters and the results of their actions don't match.

      Howard Dean has a posse (buy my t-shirts so I can afford YearlyKos!)

      by Jett on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:46:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Back years ago I worked for the federal gov't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jett

        I have been involved in statistical research my whole career, and I tried a stint with the Federal Government. That didn't last long. I am not a conformist!

        Anyway, they tried, even back then, to limit what we could do and how much freedom we had.

        They tried to enforce discipline in similar ways, and it failed miserably and employee morale plummeted.

        The whole totalitarianism (man that's a hard word to type!) in the structure of state and federal governments inhibits their ability to do a good job and do it efficiently. It's counterproductive, but they don't readily recognize that!

      •  Again (0+ / 0-)

        I don't necessarily like filtering either. But my point is that it's the government's computers. And at work they have every right to issue policies regarding the use of government-owned computers for employees who work there.  

        •  the govt computers are our computers (0+ / 0-)
          And blocking access to protected speech is un-American.  I'm done beating around the bush here.

          In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

          by yet another liberal on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:13:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geotpf

            At work companies are well within their rights to restrict employees' usage. You can't go to a job and surf at pornography. If you want to do it on your own time, that's fine. But at work the company does have the right to restrict employee usage on its on computers.

            The same thing applies to government employees. The Commonwealth of KY is well within its legal rights to restrict how its computers are used. If they want to block political blogs, it should be bipartisan. But frankly KY does have the right to regulate how its governmental employees use their computers. I'm sure that employees looking at porn would be fired.

            I'm not saying this is right. Just saying that KY is within its rights to restrict access to certain websites on computers paid for by taxpayer dollars.

            •  good job (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shapeshifter, Fabian, snacksandpop
              political speech == porn.

              I'm afraid not Jaicinto, not in this country.

              And since this diary is about blocking only certain web-sites your arguments are nothing but strawmen.

              They are easy to defeat.

              In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

              by yet another liberal on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:21:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it is a valid point (0+ / 0-)

                The government acting as an employer can restrict what employees can do in ways that it can't restrict what citizens can do. It is within their rights as an employer to regulate what employees can do with computers. Where it gets complicated is with employees whose jobs require unfiltered access and in places where state-owned computers are legitmately used by non-employees. The point I was trying to make is that filtering is a stupid way to regulate employee usage - it costs a lot of money, causes a lot of problems, doesn't really work, and invariably is used to regulate websites in a biased way. I think misuse of the internet/computers by employees should be handled as a per-individual discipline issue the same way misuse of any other infrastructure at work would be.

                "The power to dominate rests on the differential possession of knowledge" -Foucault

                by Jett on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:27:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So, let's say, instead of filtering ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  snacksandpop
                  ... they do logging.  THEN, when they see you visited dkos, you get fired.

                  Employers don't own me.

                  We can parse legal strawmen all day, but we evade an important question ... what is the true spirit of freedom?

                  Certainly, it doesn't make your employer your new tyrant watching what you read!

                  If you aren't getting your work done, that's one thing, but this is another.  This is effectively censorship and intimidation and it is utterly un-American.

                  In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

                  by yet another liberal on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:35:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                    If it were my company I probably wouldn't care what sites my employees visited as long as they didn't go to porn and/or gambling sites and or posted information that could damage the company's reputation or assets. However, again, companies are well within their right to restrict their employees' Internet access and/or web sites they visit. It's their computer so they can tell what their employees what they can and can't do with their property. If you don't like the company's rules, then go work somewhere else.

                    I don't necessarily agree with some companies that are very restrictive with Internet access, but they do have the right to devise those policies. And again, if you don't like the rules, go work somewhere else.

              •  Hey... (0+ / 0-)

                Pornography could be political speech, if it weren't for our totally brain-dead "definition" of pornography.

                The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

                by Shapeshifter on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:05:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  What Fletcher (7+ / 0-)

    never seems to realize is that every time he tries to mess with the Bluegrass Report, Nickolas writes about it. And it goes wide across the internet. So no matter how much Fletcher tries to stop him, Fletcher is the one that ends up looking like a giant fool.

  •  Off Topic but a must read (0+ / 0-)

    Experience may differ in online play...

    by OCD on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:31:25 AM PDT

  •  circumvent gov't censorship (23+ / 0-)

    Here's how to get around such pinheaded government censorship (courtesy Tech-Republic):

    Many jobs and schools (countries?) block access to certain sites. However, it is very difficult for anybody to block access to google. By using google with either of these methods, you can gain access to blocked sites very easily.

    Blocked web site, huh? Need a proxy?

    I am not a big fan of chasing free, open proxies all over the place. I use google instead. Here I describe what I believe is an uncommon way for bypassing blocked sites using google.

    1:
    The first and most common way of using google to bypass blocked sites is just to search for the site and then clicked the "cached" link that appears on google. Easy, simple, and frequently works for static information.

    2:
    Passing the site through google translator works well as well. Here's the URL to use:
    http://www.google.com/translate?langpair=en|en&u=www.blockedsite.com
    (where blockedsite.com is the site that you wish to visit)

    This translates the site from english to english and works because the ip address will appear as google instead of you. Here's a link to tech-recipes passed through the translator as an example. You can actually do this with any langpair. Change en|en in the URL above to spanish by using es|es and it still works.

    3:
    My unique method that I have not seen described before is to search through google mobile. Google mobile will "convert as you go" very similiar to the translation method above.

    Just search for your site with google mobile and click on the link it provides. Here's is tech-recipes brought up through google mobile search. Once again, this will allow you to bypass any blocks because the IP request comes from google not for you.

    Like the translation method above, google will continue to "proxy" as you continue to visit links through the site. The only side effect of this method is that google formats the site for a mobile device.

    http://www.tech-recipes.com/...

  •  Net Neutrality battle: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nate Roberts, patsprouseyo

    If any of you have been following the recent battle over so called "Net Neutrality rules" in Congress. Put that together with the recent SCOTUS ruling on speech at the workspace. The Fascist takeover is now attempting to seal the "leak in the sky ( the Internet)" so to speak. They want to shut down most accesss to these types of sites. Karl and the boys at NWO central hate us for our Freedoms.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:32:12 AM PDT

    •  Did you hear the bullshit on NPR this AM (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MarkC

      from the "Net Competition" group...at least NPR made clear after the guy's bullship essay that he is funded by Big Telcom

      General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

      by patsprouseyo on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:03:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mitch McConnell (0+ / 0-)

    Now there's a guy to be proud of.  He and Jim Bunning are two of the biggest losers in the Senate.

    Mitch the Androgenous probably has photos of him and a mule on MySpace.  Isn't Bunning drunk most of the time?

    Come on, Kentucky!

    •  Mitch shouldn't be underestimated (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MarkC, hazzcon

      He may be from Kentucky (bash it all you want), but he's ruthless and he's smart. Get over judging a man by his accent or he'll outmaneuver you everytime.

      McConnell prepares for top job

      Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell’s new hire of Don Stewart, one of the most admired communications strategists in the Senate, is one of several indications that the lawmaker is readying his expected takeover as majority leader next year.

      McConnell (R-Ky.) is also closing the Senate at the end of legislative day and negotiating the unanimous-consent agreements needed to move business forward on the floor, aides say. He is working closely with colleagues facing reelection races to make sure amendments important to them politically are considered on the floor in the run-up to the November election.

      [snip]

      Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) said McConnell has begun to assert himself more in the leadership in subtle ways.

      “In the last few months he’s been more involved than before,” Craig said. “In the past six months compared to the previous year.”

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:05:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fletcher is McConnel's man... (0+ / 0-)

      ... but now McConnel is trying to distance himself from the Gov. I wonder how many pictures I can find of the two of them together.

      hink

      •  I have some good ones AND (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Geotpf

        does anyone know how to find the "ad" on the sidebar of Google?  I don't see it on my computer and I want to get McConnell's Scorecard.

        This is a GREAT TOOL. Found it on Tom Paine.

        Punch in the full name of your congressman or woman into Google and you can find out how they treated America's middle class in 2005 by checking the "ad" on the sidebar on the right of your screen. Based on the record of how they voted on bills that affect middle-class Americans, John Boehner earned an "F" and Henry Waxman an "A" in the Drum Major Institute's just-released  Middle-Class Scorecard. To promote their scorecard, DMI bought 30 days' worth of Google ads so that every time a member of Congress gets Googled, his or her record on issues from health care to economic security gets outed, too.

        <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

        by bronte17 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:37:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see it (0+ / 0-)

          It might depend on your physical geographic location, or how many ads the website bought.  It's an ordinary Google ad.  Anybody can buy one for any search term (within some restrictions).  It appears the Drum Major Institute bought one for all 535 congresscritters, which can't be cheap.  And people wonder why Google is able to basically print money.

          •  I think it may have something to do with cookies (0+ / 0-)

            or software blocking with my Firefox.  If so, hope the people at the Drum Major Institute take that issue into consideration the next time before linking this to "ads" on Google.

            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

            by bronte17 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:02:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you not see any ads when you use Google? (0+ / 0-)

              They are text-only, so you would have to set any ad-blocking software up real high to block them, methinks.  A normal Google search almost always has at least one ad in right hand column (and sometimes at the top of the page), and many searches get like a dozen.  It's how Google makes thier money (that, and selling ads to other websites).

              •  Nope. Nothing. Not one single ad (0+ / 0-)

                Just Google in the center and a sign-in link at the upper right corner. Do I have to sign into Google or something?

                I really want to download all this info on the Middle Class votes.

                <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

                by bronte17 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:26:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  anonymous proxy use, silly liberals :-) (0+ / 0-)

     Hey, if the Chinese who get jailed for looking at the wrong sites can do it, so can some government workers in Kentucky :-)

     All ya'll need to learn how to run an anonymous proxy ... although access to that sort of thing maybe be locked down as well - its a browser setting.

     Are you sure its just those few blogs? Sometimes its an across the board policy on work related stuff. The simple test? If they can see RedState but not DailyKos its a game, if both are gone its likely a defensible policy.

    "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise" - U.S. Constitution author and fourth President James Madison

    by Iowa Boy on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:33:11 AM PDT

  •  Censorware (16+ / 0-)

    The website boingboing.net discovered that they were being blocked by censorware so they have taken up the fight, you can find a lot of good info on defeating censorware here:

    http://www.boingboing.net/...

    One of the more interesting things about the whole censorware industry, besides the fact that they have politically biased filter criteria and that their filters don't really work, is that they have no qualms with selling their software to authoritarian regimes. The same software which blocks access to "porn" at some Forture 500 is also being used to keep information about democracy from kids in Saudi Arabia.

    I don't have the time at the moment, but if someone can lookup who is providing Kentucky with their censorware, chances are damn good we can come at them with the whole "they filter the internet just like <insert scary bad place>!". That's the kind of thing that hits home with American's who don't "get it".

    Howard Dean has a posse (buy my t-shirts so I can afford YearlyKos!)

    by Jett on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:33:47 AM PDT

    •  Shut it down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth

      The Repukes have decided these sites need to be squestered and as much access to them as possible needs to be denied. Whose going to stop them? The recent ruling of the Robert's Ct. limiting free speech on the worksite is just the beginning, add to that the end of Net Neutrality rules and we see the beginnings of a Chinese style Internet.
       The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are now under a frontal assault bcause they have enough votes on the SCOTUS to destroy or limit these freedoms. They have an agenda and they are working it daily.

      "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

      by Blutodog on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:41:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm skeptical (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PanzerMensch, greenearth

        I don't think a Chinese-style internet will be implemented in America, they might try but it will be resisted. There are a lot of very radical people who keep the internet humming and/or know how to transform that humming into a piercing scream. If the line is ever crossed I am certain they will act.

        Howard Dean has a posse (buy my t-shirts so I can afford YearlyKos!)

        by Jett on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:54:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And YES, there is absolutely NO need for (0+ / 0-)

          net neutrality legislation...snark

          General and Supreme Commander of the 82nd Chairborne: I've killed people for less!

          by patsprouseyo on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:01:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are wrong, I'm sorry to say. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snacksandpop
          Not only is Congress in the process of passing enabling legislation so pipeline owners could do just that, the traditional media, which is threatened by the internet, will go along with the Chinesification of the internet and not tell you about it. So how would you find out?

          For instance, if Daily Kos was blocked, and there was no mention in the media about it, what would you do? Start a phone tree? Call your (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Congressperson who, being an incumbent, also doesn't want a neutral internet? Nope. Barnyard door closed. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Just pay the taxes we tell you to pay and shut up.


          -7.25/-6.41 Service [to others] is the rent we pay for the space we occupy. -Rev. M. L. King, Jr.

          by sravaka on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:21:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the intarweb doesn't work that way (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PanzerMensch, snacksandpop

            My point is that there are enough key people who make the internet work who will not stand by and allow the internet to be "Chinafied" that the process will never be completed. A line will be crossed and a battle will start. The internet is more than just a bunch of routers and switches and computers plugged together with cables, it is also a bunch of people who know how to make those routers and switches and computers do exactly what they want.  

            If dkos was blocked by my ISP I would change ISPs. If it were blocked at the backbone level I'd run through a proxy of some sort (and I can guarantee you there will be some really cool programs created to get around the blocking). If, by some nearly impossible magic, it were impossible to access dkos from America then America would have to be a totalitarian dictatorship and I would probably be a refugee living in another country working on defeating the magical American internet filter.

            To answer your question of how I would find out dkos was blocked if the traditional media didn't tell me - the traditional media doesn't tell me a lot of stuff I know about. We live in an age of instant global communication, censorship doesn't work 100% anymore. My guess is that if the government ever started mandating blockage of sites like dkos in America you would see the internet brought down under a blaze of packets launched from every single botnet on earth until they changed their mind.  

            "The power to dominate rests on the differential possession of knowledge" -Foucault

            by Jett on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:43:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your an Optimist (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sravaka

              I suggest you follow the Congressional hearing a little closer. Last week I heard Sen. Brownback basically asking the FCC Commissioner whose was present if he had the power to block whatever whenever by edict essentially and he said YES. Brownback and his ilk want an Internet cleansed of Porn and political opinion he doesn't like and he could care less about the Constitution. Your right we will push back and it will be a battle but they are winning right now on the legal front. The house has already given the Big Telcoms what they want and you can be damn sure the price they will have to pay is to knuckle under to what guys like Brownback et al. want. Look at how they handed us over to the NSA all of them except for one! No, your wrong they are slowly trying to close the crack in the sky. They have a fairly good handle on the other media and this is the one they are really itching to get a lease on. The party is almost over. Soon the Internet will be nothing more then a State sanctioned shopping mall with politics relegated to the sites the Telcoms are told are ok. Is it Constitutional? Probably not by our reading of the document but look whose on the court now.  They use it as toilet paper remember.

              "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

              by Blutodog on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:26:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the internet is not television (0+ / 0-)

                I don't think I'm an optimist. The legal front will not matter too much in the end, either it stops there (for awhile at least) or it stops further down the road. They are absolutely trying to lock the internet down and clean it of porn and rebellion and make it "safe" but it's a nearly impossible task that will have increasingly severe repercussions as they succede in accomplishing it. The internet will never become what you describe because the closer they get the worst the fight will become for them. The internet will rip itself apart before it turns into what you describe. As an analogy - think about the RIAA's battle against file-sharing. They keep escalating their tactics but they are fighting a hopeless battle. They took down Napster easily enough because it was centralized so people invented decentralized systems. They try to go after the users and owners of the decentralized systems so now people are building encryption and improved security models into the software and working anonymously or from countries which won't comply with RIAA demands.

                With the internet as a whole it's the same principle writ large, it is a fight that can never be won. They will never eradicate porn, or file sharing, or unregulated political discussion from the internet because people will always fight back. In a worst case-scenario something like Freenet will be required to run on top of the "internet", but I doubt it will ever even reach that point.

                "The power to dominate rests on the differential possession of knowledge" -Foucault

                by Jett on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:52:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm with you! (0+ / 0-)

                  I sure hope your right and i'm wrong but if China is any indication of what we can expect from these klowns  i'd be lyin to say  I'm not  worried. I wouldn't under estimate how friggin Evil and determined these creeps seem to be.

                  "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

                  by Blutodog on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:31:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  China is the future for all of us. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Blutodog
                    Study it and find its weakpoints now, because eventually the US will replicate the Chinese political system. And, oh yes, their Constitution looks good, too, so there's no help there.

                    When you have a one party state (as we do at present) allied with corporations and with control of the media (and soon to include the internet), you've got a state corporation with no easy way to organize against it. For the next 3 years (at least), we are in the fight of our lives and we'd better not lose or it will take many generations to undo the damage, if  it's even possible. That's how important net neutrality is at the moment.


                    -7.25/-6.41 Service [to others] is the rent we pay for the space we occupy. -Rev. M. L. King, Jr.

                    by sravaka on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:06:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  YOU would... (0+ / 0-)

              But the question isn't about you. It is, rather, about what the public will do. Even the most restrictive blocking can be defeated by a very clever person, but most people are significantly less clever than that.

              The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

              by Shapeshifter on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:49:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  things become easier (0+ / 0-)

                Back in the day (pre-Napster) we used to trade mp3's via FTP. The first time I played a game on the internet I had to get TCP/IP working in Dos. Now someone barely computer literate can do either of these things easily. The same will be true of circumventing blocking if it becomes widespread. Freenet is already fairly easy to install, or at least it was last time I played around with it.

                "The power to dominate rests on the differential possession of knowledge" -Foucault

                by Jett on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 01:00:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  porn industry is big (0+ / 0-)

          They are rich. They will fight censorship of sexual content.

          If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

          by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:40:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  'Ye shall suppress the truth... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    patsprouseyo

    ...and the suppression of truth shall keep ye in power."

    --Republican Jesus.

  •  Must be pornographic! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eikyu Saha

    Overthrow the Government ~Vote~

    by missliberties on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:38:40 AM PDT

  •  wonkette (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shapeshifter

    has also been blocked by the VA, but you can pick a reicht wing site at random and have no issue accessing it.

  •  It's not so bad the Bluegrass Report's blocked... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eru, Kayakbiker

    ...as it is that the Bluegrass Report is the only site that's blocked.  A more fair and balanced blocking of sites is called for in this case, I'd say.

    Frankly, this seems foolish on Fletcher's part.  If my office were in trouble, I'd want to know what they were thinking outside, and I'd want my employees to, too.  This circle-the-wagons mentality isn't good for keeping Kentucky's employees in the loop.  In fact, pulling wool over their eyes will only serve to drive home the idea that something is very wrong—possibly wronger than they actually are.  Bad move, Mr. Governor.

    A conservative is just a liberal who hasn't needed a second chance yet.

    by Kurt Kaletka on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 08:46:41 AM PDT

  •  Similar case in South Carolina (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snacksandpop, eru, bobbobgirl, RocksRock

    In 2004 and 2005, a state representative from Goose Creek, South Carolina, tried to accomplish a similar objective. Shirley Hinson is a pro-voucher Republican. The state education association started writing daily reports that quoted Hinson (and others) saying antagonistic things about public school educators, and school funding and other matters and emailing these reports to educators and the media. Teachers and parents in her own district -- a wealthy enclave just inland from Charleston -- started questioning her. She couldn't deny that she'd said what was quoted -- they were accurate quotes, after all -- so she attacked the medium. She proposed legislation that would restrict the use of state-owned computers by teachers to receive email having to do with legislation on public education, school funding or lawmakers themselves.

    She wasn't successful -- but only because her colleagues couldn't figure out how to let rhetorical pro-incumbent emails from getting through while stopping the factual (i.e., anti-incumbent) emails.

    Even in South Carolina, the First Amendment still breathes.

  •  Well Folks... (5+ / 0-)

    even though it's a govt owned network, they can and will block as they see fit.  

    If you're upset over users in a microcosm unable to freely access the internet guess what it's going to be like when the telcos get the chance to exact it upon all of us?

    This is a red flag to fight for Net Neutrality if I ever saw one waving on the horizon...

    "Sorry... I don't *do* Republicans." The new abstinence!

    by Hippichick45 on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:06:02 AM PDT

  •  Yay (0+ / 0-)

    This is just more proof that we are having an impact on the world. I wonder how long it will take for the sites to be unblocked. Hopefully not too long...

  •  Saddam, Stalin and Ernie Fletcher (3+ / 0-)

    Now you tell me how Fletcher isn't trying to create a goddamned republican police state in Kentucky with this kind of censorship- the man is now even afraid of words on a computer screen.

    Stalin, Saddam and the corrupt are the kind of folks who are afraid of words and honest dissent- not Americans.

    It's abundantly clear Kentucky republicans are no longer to be trusted as guardians of American Democracy- they MUST be brought to justice.

    This is simply outrageous.

  •  Republican Russian Style Censorship... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eikyu Saha

    ...the gift that keeps on giving.  Thank you, Comrade Ernie Fletcher.

  •  let's send the governor a letter about this (0+ / 0-)
  •  a sign of things to come (0+ / 0-)

    If this is what can happen with publicly owned computers --where we actually have a fundamental right to demand free and open access-- just think what it will be like when the internet becomes private property.

    "It belongs to us," they'll say. "You have no right to tell us what we can and cannot do with it. Our fundamental only responsibility is to our shareholders."

  •  I've a friend (0+ / 0-)

    that "works" in government and spends her day playing with "funny" e-mails and blogs. It's a good thing I decided not to pay taxes since Bush's selection/appointment or I'd feel slightly abused.

    Workplaces are for working.

    Thank you Lord, for this generous rain and abundant lightning. -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:24:27 AM PDT

  •  Anything... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that limits the range of political discussion ought to be criticized.  Critical thinking is the sine qua non of an informed electorate (which is, after all, the point of democracy).

    "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

    by aybayb on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:40:55 AM PDT

  •  I am a (0+ / 0-)

    fed employee and the only political site that I like to look at, but that I always get 'access denied' to, is Smirking Chimp.  Crooks and Liars, I can get to.  Jesus' General.  But not Smirking Chimp.  I think that is very strange since all content on Smirking Chimp is clipped from the public media, frequently quite mainstream outlets.

  •  Honestly, what scares me the most is if this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hazzcon, Shapeshifter

    is elevated to the SCOTUS ..

    Think about that for a minute.

    "Rovus vulgaris americanus"
    Chronic infection
    of Democracy.
    Cure: Pending
    -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:47:06 AM PDT

  •  Fletcher has to go (0+ / 0-)

    -4.63,-3.54 If the people will lead the leaders will follow

    by calebfaux on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:55:02 AM PDT

  •  Give em rope, watch em hang themselves (0+ / 0-)

    Democrat: "Hey, you guys are kinda fuckin' everything up. Could ya stop it?"
    Republican: (With hands over ears) "I can't HEEEAAARRR YYOOOUUUU!"

    Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

    by hazzcon on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 09:56:17 AM PDT

  •  Can anyone say (0+ / 0-)

    Net Neutrality?

    I know this is a TOTALLY different issue, but just goes to show how someone with control of the pipes can limit access.  Now its corrupt GOP governors, next its unscrupulus Telecom CEOs

  •  Maybe the Ann Coulter method is catching on.... (0+ / 0-)

    We might get lucky here. Every time that someone on the right goes over the top the rug gets yanked out from underneath themselves and all we have to do is catch.

    Lemme see here....China filters out internet = BAD

    Kentucky filters out internet....um....how could you spin this?

    I got it....they're trying to show how more intelligent graduates from their high schools and colleges allowed them to find someone technologically savy enough to do it without having to bribe anyone from out of state  ?

    George Orwell is banging on his coffin lid and screaming, "1984 was a cautionary tale, you dolts, not a motivational speech!"

    by snafubar on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:07:31 AM PDT

  •  Payback time? (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps we can e-mail the NY Times story to any state computer in Kentucky we can find, as well as a link to this thread on Kos.

    If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen.

    by EZ writer on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:10:48 AM PDT

  •  Wonkette is LIBERAL? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eikyu Saha

    At first I thought the blogs could save America.  Now, I don't.  If Wonkette is considered "liberal," it's all over.  The so-called "liberals" are the same as the RWers.  Two sides to the same dirty coin.

    •  Looks like they blocked all political blogs (0+ / 0-)

      Regardless of political bent (or lack thereof-I consider Wonketter to be non-partisan).  Heck, they may have blocked all blogs (or attempted to, at least).

      •  Also blocked (0+ / 0-)

        TPM and TPMmuckraker are blocked as well.

        Paul Kiel

        After posting, I called the state's tech office and spoke to COT Assistant Director Jim Lydon there, who claimed not to know anything about the blocking. They said they block "a lot of inappropriate business sites," such as gambling or shopping sites, but that he didn't know anything about blocking political sites. But he said he'd get back to me.

        Since then, it appears the office has got wind that this is a bigger deal. I called him again when I learned we'd been blocked and was referred to the press rep of the state's Secretary of Finance. I left a message there.

        The Governor's office still won't return our calls.

        And Atrios is blocked too.

        Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

        by mini mum on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:21:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  is the bloggers need for access work related? (0+ / 0-)

    probably not, and maybe some conservative sites aren't.  it is possible they haven't gotten around to blocking them.
    i'm always a little surprised at the sites i can still get to while at work.  i know though that it is only a matter of time.

  •  liberal blogs blocked... (0+ / 0-)

    ...if they can block in Kentucky it will happen anywhere and anytime. It's one thing for state govt to block blogs in general but if its clearly liberal blogs only then it is not being done in the name of work production. I've found when I can't for whatever reason get to dailykos direct I do google search and click on what it beings up and I'm there. I know this is probably more involved than what I encounter but it might be worth a try.

    Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of the people.

    by kalihikane on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:20:19 AM PDT

  •  As a SysAdmin for a state organization (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, snacksandpop, bobbobgirl

    know this:  everything you do on your computer at work is open for inspection -EVERYTHING

    There is no such thing as confidentiality or freedom in any workplace.  What you do at work is on the dime of the employer (be it state, or private company).  They pay for the bandwidth you use, they own the computer you use.

    I am even breaking my own rules to comment on this at the moment (I happen to be at work).

    Cheers!  

    "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education" -Albert Einstein

    by WryCynic on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:22:26 AM PDT

    •  True (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WryCynic

      But u can object to this kind of filtering. I worked for the Feds. and a Big Corp. and was asked to do this kind of political filtering and objected in writing. I was eventually dismissed.

      "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

      by Blutodog on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:05:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Luckily I haven't been asked (0+ / 0-)

        to do any form of blocking or packet shaping.  If I were asked I would object, but I do not wish to lose my job over it!

        With that said, I feel that blocking any site is abhorrent to my nature.  I believe in the right to express ones self and to gather publicly (O.K. a virtual gathering...), exchanging ideas and information.  

        If only liberal/Democrat sites are being blocked, then that is unethical.  If you are gunna block, block them all or state up front that company policy is "No blogging at work" and block them all.

        Dang, there I go breaking my own rule again!

        Get to work!  :)

        "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education" -Albert Einstein

        by WryCynic on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:47:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You should see how it is here at the VA... (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not going to go into specifics (since I probably shouldn't/can't), but it's clear that website blocking is partisan.

    I'm sure that conservatives are okay with having their favorite sites blocked once the Dems regain control of the executive brach.  Right?  ::rolleyes::

    Reclaim Democracy: It's not just politics - it's economics, too

    by EconAtheist on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:36:06 AM PDT

  •  This seems blatantly unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

    surely this violates the first amendment.

    Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.

    by Benito on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:36:40 AM PDT

  •  how illegal is this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snacksandpop

    Who performed the actions necessary to block these websites?

    On what authority?

    Presumably, some government employee had to give the person doing the technical work access. To what extent is this behavior illegal?

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 10:38:43 AM PDT

  •  Fletcher and the Banana Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    For more on the ethical woes of Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher and a laundry list of other Banana Republicans, see:
    "Absolute Corruption."

  •  Remind me again, are we in the USA or China? n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  waaaay OT here but: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snacksandpop

    was wondering if any one heard this yet? from Reuters:
    The U.S. military will charge seven Marines and a Navy corpsman with murder and other charges in the April 26 killing of an Iraqi civilian in the town of Hamdania, a U.S. defense official said

    sad linkhope I'm linking this right

  •  Question -- Motivation and Circumstance. (0+ / 0-)

    After reading the story's and looking at the blogs, I'm most interested in the primary motivation for this action, which appears to be censorship.  

    Exactly what have you guys written on your blogs that has prompted this action.  I'm sorry if someone's already answered this question in the thread, I haven't had a chance to wade through it.  Perhaps someone could enlighten me please?

    Supposing this is censorship of political speech, are those doing the censoring hiding behind some pretext like objectionable language or liable?  In other words do they have some way of justifying this censorship?

  •  Question -- Motivation and Circumstance (0+ / 0-)

    After reading the story's and looking at the blogs, I'm most interested in the primary motivation for this action which appears to be censorship.  Exactly what have you guys written on your blogs that has prompted this action?  

    I'm sorry if someone's already answered this question in the thread, I haven't had a chance to wade through it.  Perhaps someone could enlighten me please?

    Supposing this is censorship of political speech, are those doing the censoring hiding behind some pretext like objectionable language or liable?  In other words do they have some way of justifying this censorship?

  •  Incidentally... (0+ / 0-)

    This is a taste of one form of non-neutral internet. Except, of course, instead of the government saying which websites are ungoodthink (hello, China! No wonder the current administration is getting so cozy with Communists!) it could be your ISP.

    The Shapeshifter's Blog -- Politics, Philosophy, and Madness!

    by Shapeshifter on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:16:06 AM PDT

  •  Hey, great job! (0+ / 0-)

    Heavy handed suppression of a dissenting viewpoint! That's definitely what democracy is allll about.

    How dumb do these republicans have to be?

    "Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." -- JFK

    by Tryptophan on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 11:24:49 AM PDT

  •  Lucky me (0+ / 0-)

    Luckily I work for the Community college system in Kentucky and they don't block anything because of academic freedom.  I've been posting telling folks about the crazy stuff going on here but poor ol kentucky just gets ignored, the state is ripe for a backlash against the republicans if we could get some national support.  Last Primary I'm sad to say in my voting precinct not one democrat was on the ballot for anything at all so I didn't even get to vote.....

  •  Legal censorship? (0+ / 0-)

    Employer maintains the right....blah blah blah. Sue him anyway. Sue the entire state.

  •  The Chickens.../Snark (0+ / 0-)

    Not to worry, the chickens will come home to roost... Just as soon as someone sues the hell outta of Kentucky for this crap... The right just can't stand the truth being thrown at them because it's going to stain those pristine white robes they wear... Hope their hoods are handy so they can cover their White Supremacists Fat Heads/snark

    Take Care All... PLHeart..

    by PLHeart on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 12:52:43 PM PDT

  •  Kentucky Gov Gets E-Mail (0+ / 0-)

    Just wrote an e-mail to the Governor of Kentucky, I called it Gutless Governor...Reads as follows: There's just got to be something about a southern governor who doesn't have enough guts to let people in his state access to any web site they please. It's ok to ban web sites, on state computers, such as sex sites, but, when you ban the Bluegrass web site, you have got to be the biggest jackass on the planet. If you're going to ban this site, then ban all the political web sites including the Drudge Report.
    What are you afraid of? Did the Bluegrass web site catch you with your greasy hand in the tax till? Or are you sleeping with somebody you shouldn't be like your hound dog?
    That's the thing about you southern boys, give you a bit of power & you act like backwardasscountryfucks. College educated yes, but, backwardasscountryfucks none the less.
    Gorw up...!!!

    Take Care All... PLHeart..

    by PLHeart on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:07:00 PM PDT

  •  tell anyone you know out there (0+ / 0-)

    to find out if the web-based anonymous proxy site Anonymizer is on the banned list. One can go to that site, fill in the text box with the name of the URL one wants, and all the user logging will show is http://www.anonymizer.com.

    If it is, google on "web-based anonymous proxies".

    Remember to purge cache and cookies manually (check browser Preferences) after every session.

    Setting up an anonymous proxy program like Proximitron (Windoze) on one's work computer can be even more hazardous to one's job.

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Wed Jun 21, 2006 at 04:58:23 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site