Export thread

I want to state up front I gots no problem with an employer blocking websites for employees. You choose to work there, you accept their rules, etc, etc. However, all this seems legit until you get to this "controversial opinions" thing... what exactly does that mean?
TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - 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."

There is also no explanation as to why controversial opinions are being blocked, although the email stated that some of the restricted websites violate the Employee Responsibilities and Conduct policy.

The TSA did not return calls seeking comment by publication time.

Click to expand...

Government gone wild? Just being careful? I'd like to see what our government looks at as "controversial opinions"... Since it's the TSA they will probably be blocking that Seinfeld bit about fat TSA workers...

They will likely ban Hate-Speech websites. You could only wish they'd block Fox News...

I assume Hate Speech stuff, but I'm wondering more what their standards are for deciding whats what? If our forum had someone post a rant about hating the government, 9/11 conspiracies, etc would that fit under "controversial opinions"?

What the hell is a "controversial opinion"? Doesn't that fly full in the face of the 1st amendment?

I'm fine with most of the others. While I personally think it's unnecessary, as Espy says, any employer can block whatever website they want to keep employees from wasting time browsing the Net.

I'm not sure what "criminal activity" is supposed to mean, though. We could probably make a lot of comments about the ability of the TSA to discern "criminal activity".

SpecialKO said:

We could probably make a lot of comments about the ability of the TSA to discern "criminal activity".

Click to expand...

LOL.

Awesome. You just earned yourself some sweet, sweet Espy rep.

Woo!

Honestly, I wonder how much we'd be poking at this if it wasn't the TSA, specifically? If it was the CIA, I'm not sure I would have batted an eye without much more evidence of shenanigans.

Really? The fact that it's a government agency is the only reason it makes me raise an eyebrow at all, regardless of what government agency it is. If they had said, "Hate Speech" I wouldn't have batted an eye, but they didn't. They used a really odd term...

Considering this is to prevent employees from accessing certain sites, I'm unsure how to respond. If it was supposed to be for private citizens, i think I would be more upset over it.

Well, like I said, I got no problem with an employer blocking ANY websites. I mean, it's their business so go nuts. You don't want your people on your clock hanging on CNN? Or Facebook? Go for it. I'm more interested in how they are determining what is a "controversial opinion" than anything else.

How is this different from an employer blocking access to whatever sites it wants? They are only doing it for federal agency computers. If they want to look at "controversial opinion" sites, they can still do it at home if they want. I guess I don't see what the big deal is, work computers are for work. Anything else is a privilege given by the employer, if they don't want to give that then find a new job.

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

Espy said:

I'm more interested in how they are determining what is a "controversial opinion" than anything else.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter though? They aren't preventing the employees from going to those sites at home, and they aren't preventing them from doing something on their own time.

Don't get me wrong, it's a worrying term regardless, but the scale of asshattery at the TSA is so huge that I'm certain that the term, in this case, is indicative of something rotten and Danish. If it was the CIA that did it, it might worry me a bit about the group-think there, but unless there's evidence of a more pervasive application of that term, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the CIA not to want their employees using classified info to win arguments with Net pundits.

What is the state of 'Hate Speech' in the US? Is it legally defined? Is it protected under freedom of speech? I'm just wondering now, because I realize that I have a poor understanding of how all of this works down there.

Shakey said:

[/COLOR]

Espy said:

I'm more interested in how they are determining what is a "controversial opinion" than anything else.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter though? They aren't preventing the employees from going to those sites at home, and they aren't preventing them from doing something on their own time.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter? Mainly because I'm curious what our government considers controversial opinions I guess? As I've made rather clear, I'm not worried this is some big government clamp down on views they don't like, but it's an odd wording and I wonder what they mean by it. I'm only going to say this one last time, since people seem to not be reading posts well today: I. Don't. Care. If. They. Block. Every. Damn. Website. In. The. World.
It's their employees and they can do what they want with the web, but I don't understand the "Don't wonder about why the government is doing something" mentality...

"Hate Speech" in the US requires specific incitement to criminal/discriminatory action of some kind, whether it's violence, harassment, or something else. If it doesn't contain such language, even the most racist point of view is protected by the 1st amendment.

---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

I think it makes a difference which agency is involved, thanks to the history and responsibilities of each agency. If the CIA said that they were going to record every phone call made on their premises and all their international stations and every American embassy 24/7, I would consider that par for the course. If the DC Mall police, who are federal employees, did the same for every building in the Smithsonian, including regular museum hours, I'd actually find that quite invasive.

SpecialKO said:

"Hate Speech" in the US requires specific incitement to criminal/discriminatory action of some kind, whether it's violence, harassment, or something else. If it doesn't contain such language, even the most racist point of view is protected by the 1st amendment.

Click to expand...

Okay, so

"[Epithet]s are worthless." = protected
"Kill all the [Epithet]s." = hate speech

That about it?

Man, Rob King really hates Epithets. This is turning into a really controversial thread full of controversial opinions I think we bette


BLOCKED BY THE TSA. HAVE FUN NEXT TIME YOU INTERNET FREAKS TRY TO BOARD A PLANE.

I misuse words sometimes, guys. It's a problem I have. I can stop myself most of the time, but other times I just [strike]canned[/strike] can't.

Espy;410450][QUOTE=Shakey said:

[/COLOR]

Espy said:

I'm more interested in how they are determining what is a "controversial opinion" than anything else.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter though? They aren't preventing the employees from going to those sites at home, and they aren't preventing them from doing something on their own time.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter? Mainly because I'm curious what our government considers controversial opinions I guess? As I've made rather clear, I'm not worried this is some big government clamp down on views they don't like, but it's an odd wording and I wonder what they mean by it. I'm only going to say this one last time, since people seem to not be reading posts well today: I. Don't. Care. If. They. Block. Every. Damn. Website. In. The. World.
It's their employees and they can do what they want with the web, but I don't understand the "Don't wonder about why the government is doing something" mentality...[/QUOTE]

It's not that I don't wonder about what the government is doing, it's just that I really don't care what their rationale is for blocking certain sites for their employees. It seems like an overreaction to me.

Rob King;410457][QUOTE=SpecialKO said:

"Hate Speech" in the US requires specific incitement to criminal/discriminatory action of some kind, whether it's violence, harassment, or something else. If it doesn't contain such language, even the most racist point of view is protected by the 1st amendment.

Click to expand...

Okay, so

"[Epithet]s are worthless." = protected
"Kill all the [Epithet]s." = hate speech

That about it?[/QUOTE]

More or less. Where it gets rough is that the law is quite unclear, intentionally, on the use of innuendo and implied meaning. So US hate groups on the Net have gotten relatively careful about phrasing their views in public.

Official TSA rebuttal

TSA Responds to Web Blocking Memo - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

looks like they don't block criticism

Shakey said:

It's not that I don't wonder about what the government is doing, it's just that I really don't care what their rationale is for blocking certain sites for their employees. It seems like an overreaction to me.

Click to expand...

Wondering about something is an overreaction? Well, time to pack our bags boys.

The whole point of the article is to imply that they are some how overstepping their bounds by blocking sites they find to be controversial, or are going to abuse it in some way. I see that as an overreaction. It seems like a simple catch all for sites that they may find to be inappropriate for work. How else should they define it?

I dunno man, but I don't see how a news agency asking the government to clarify what it considered "controversial opinions" to be over-reaction, rather it seems like exactly the sort of thing a news agency should be doing.

I wouldn't want my employees goofing off on the net. Ban all the sites except for email clients. No internet. No problem.

I guess it just seems to me to be a non-issue. I don't see why they need to clarify it other than it's not work related.

Of course it could be because I'm about to say screw it and push management for a web filter at my current job, something I thought I'd never do.

Meh, this is non-news. In reality, "controversial opinions" is just an umbrella term used to allow them to block whatever they deem necessary. I doubt this is some grand censorship conspiracy to squelch dissent, but rather just their way of covering their ass. Anything that could conceivably cause an issue, then, can be called a controversial opinion.

You know, at my job we're not allowed to go on the internet during work hours. Because I'm not getting paid to fuck around.

escushion said:

Because I'm not getting paid to fuck around.

Click to expand...

You obviously don't work for the government.

Espy;410450][QUOTE=Shakey said:

[/COLOR]

Espy said:

I'm more interested in how they are determining what is a "controversial opinion" than anything else.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter though? They aren't preventing the employees from going to those sites at home, and they aren't preventing them from doing something on their own time.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter? Mainly because I'm curious what our government considers controversial opinions I guess? As I've made rather clear, I'm not worried this is some big government clamp down on views they don't like, but it's an odd wording and I wonder what they mean by it. I'm only going to say this one last time, since people seem to not be reading posts well today: I. Don't. Care. If. They. Block. Every. Damn. Website. In. The. World.
It's their employees and they can do what they want with the web, but I don't understand the "Don't wonder about why the government is doing something" mentality...[/QUOTE]

I know this is nitpicky, but it always strikes me as a little odd when The Government is personified like this. What probably happened is an upper manager or a small group of managers decided to make an internal policy change about internet use. After all, internet abuse within a government agency has been in the news recently... It was probably something that snowballed, as they likely needed to bring at least IT, HR, and probably legal into it before they progressed. Like managers are apt to do (in businesses as well as the government), he/she/they passed out a poorly worded notice that was probably as confusing internally as it is to all of us. Perhaps they have access to a list of banned sites internally, though. Long story long, "the government" implies a systematic, policy-wide shift that is (perhaps) driven by those people who reach into all departments, branches, etc. In all likelihood, it is more Dilbert-esque than that.