Selective blog blocking by Interior Department?

I don't like blog blocking, especially selective blog blocking, and I am disturbed to see evidence (via Glenn Reynolds) that the Interior Department might be doing both. Here's Baron Bodissey's list of the blocked and not blocked:

Blocked Blogs:
Captain's Quarters
Cox and Forkum
Gates of Vienna
Little Green Footballs
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Power Line
Protein Wisdom
Rantings of a Sandmonkey
Roger L. Simon
The Adventures of Chester
The American Thinker
The Belmont Club
The Doctor is In
Wizbang

Blogs not blocked
DailyKos
Democrat Underground
America blog
Atrios.blogspot.com
JuanCole.com
The Huffington Post
Talkingpointsmemo.com

If that's accurate, it does indeed reveal selective bias.

This reminds me of a similar situation in Kentucky, and while it's one thing for a private employer to do this, when it's the government, the standard changes.

Aside from the issue of blocking access to conservative or libertarian sites while allowing liberal or socialist ones, I'm wondering about the goal here. If it is to discourage employees wasting time on the job, then why allow access to any news sites at all? I'd like to know whether the Interior Department blocks yahoo news, the New York Times, the Drudge Report, and the Raw Story. If they don't, I'd wonder why; should employees be reading news? And if they should (or if they are allowed to), then what about analysis and opinion? Every major news site offers the latter in addition to news -- as do many blogs. The only common distinction is is that the latter tend to be less widely read than the former. Isn't it an editorial judgment (a content based one) to allow discrimination based on the economic value of the publisher?

I don't see how the federal government can make these valuations based on types of speech in a manner consistent with the First Amendment.

UPDATE (10/16/06): Via Pajamas Media, Sean Gleeson looks at the DOI's goal (which is to block all blogs, not just conservative ones), and explains why it makes no sense.

UPDATE (10/17/06): Pajamas Media asked Baron Bodissey to perform an "up-close and personal" examination, and after an exhaustive review, he points to a subordinate as the most likely explanation:

"The department started blocking certain categories of websites, and then made a list of exceptions that would be allowed through the filter. That's a long list, and it would be passed down the food chain from the Network Administrator through his subordinates until it reached the poor schmoe at the bottom of the heap who would have to do all the data entry to list the exceptions.

"Now imagine this guy: he just happens to be a left-winger, and likes to hang out at Daily Kos and Atrios during his downtime. He realizes that won't be able to do that any more, so he adds his favorite sites to the list of exceptions, and then that he can continue with his recreational reading.

"He thinks that nobody will notice, or that his superiors are too stupid to ever figure it out. In any case, it never occurs to him that there are conservatives at DOI who will notice and object."

I like this explanation. It's simple, it's elegant, and it satisfies Occam's razor. It posits the least amount of conspiracy -- at most, a couple of flunkies in the basement of DOI taking action on their own behalf -- and it doesn't require that my sources be liars.

posted by Eric on 10.12.06 at 12:14 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4112






Comments

Not to give the impression that I agree with this sort of thing, but it is very possible that they've installed a commercial blocking program, that has selective categories for blocking.

For example, Kim's site is blocked because it is categorized as a gun blog. "Guns" is a category that a company can check as excluded. I appealed their categorization, but was told to sod off. Political is a different category that most companies don't turn off.

Then there are general blocks for language and pictures that could be considered offensive.

I cannot come up with any way that Belmont or American Thinker would fit in a category that wouldn't also snap up Kos.

So it does look bad, but until we have more info, I'm still on the fence. The government, especially because of the higher standard, should block all blogs (because government employees shouldn't be using people-paid-for equipment for their personal use), unless reading blogs is part of their job. And the "I was just using it during lunch" is no excuse. It's not your computer to use for personal reasons EVER. If someone wants to read the Internet on their lunch break, then they should bring their own computer and go to an Internet cafe.

Mrs. du Toit   ·  October 12, 2006 01:34 PM

VERY, VERY weird...

Why would a government run by conservatives block out sites that agree with it and allow sites that disagree with it?

Anonymous   ·  October 12, 2006 05:54 PM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits