Lawsuit Says Kentucky Can't Ban State Employees From Reading Blog
from the banning,-rather-than-facing,-criticism dept
A few weeks back, a story spread around the news about how the state of Kentucky had started blocking access to a political blog critical of the governor of Kentucky from state computers (while still allowing access to plenty of other sites). Greg Beck, from Public Citizen, has written in to let us know that his organization has now filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming it violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit notes that the state can ban certain activities, but cannot selectively pick and choose what reading material is allowed based on content.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why not?
The lawsuit notes that the state can ban certain activities, but cannot selectively pick and choose what reading material is allowed based on content.
Why not? Don't they have the right to block porn sites? Hate sites? Gambling or gaming sites? It's a slippery slope. I would think an employer can block any site they want to since it's their resources being used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not?
the state of Kentucky is allowed to ban reading of ALL PORN sites with state computers or ALL HATE SITES or ALL SITES... and they just as easily could have said "Thou shalt not read BLOGS of any kind on company time" -- and that would be LEGAL because they are saying that any activity of type X is banned.
what they did by blocking ONE BLOG is engage in censorship because the Gov'nah had his undies in a bunch. since the reading of blogs is allowed and from what we know right now it would appear that the state of Kentucky had no prior policy about reading them on state time with state computers they can't simply block access. let's be clear, the state of Kentucky looks pretty stupid if they allow employees to read blogs on company time and had no "acceptable use" policy in place and then went ahead and just locked down 1 blog...
as to your final paragraph, YES, they have the the right to block ALL PORN or ALL HATE or ALL GAMBLING etc sites. YES, they have the right to form an "acceptable use" policy that would allow them to block whatever they want. BUT if there were no preexisting policy to lean on in taking that action, employees would have no guidance to know if their behavior was improper (by the law) so they would be correct in assuming that they could read blogs and would be justified in being upset about having their access to that 1 blog terminated since they were engaging in permissible behavior.
if the state wanted to do this, all the Guv'nah needed to do was sign some sort of executive order that required all state agencies to put in place an "acceptable use" policy and then simply shut down access to all blogs.
so YES the state has the right but they needed to go about it correctly. simply blocking access to 1 blog was incorrect given what the policy (probably) was(n't).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it that much different than private sector?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the state different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the state different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i saw that the senator from kentucky called a newspaper publisher a traitor the other day.. then he igores the rule of law and lets george bush rape and pillage our constitution. fuck them all. they will take every right we have if we keep sitting on our asses.
we've become a nation of sheep.. baaaaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: charlie potatoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: charlie potatoes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you guys are missing the point BIG TIME
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simple solution
It sucks from a user perspective, but it can be done. And you could do this without breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Ole boys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lie in the bed you make
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, if they blocked ALL porn sites, ALL gambling sites, ALL gaming sites, or ALL blogs.
But that's not what they're doing. They're blocking SOME blogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless you count blocking the entire Internet, or like one of the posters here mentioned, restricting access strictly to .gov or .mil sites.
"They're blocking SOME blogs."
Just like other employers block SOME porn sites, SOME gambling sites, SOME gaming sites, etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing is, the employees are potential voters. You cannot control the informations thats available in such a way that it would give you an unfair advantage in the next election. That makes a single party election, ripe for a tiny bit of tasty fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Information control and supression inside the goverment
- Censorship of the press
- Bill of rights is seen as a thing that cripples the goverment
I think I heard something like that before. Sounds familiar isn't it? If you don't know what I'm talking about then you are in trouble my friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it's an employer controlling access to a non-business related Internet site, it happens all the time.
State enforced censorship would be the governor getting the state ISPs to block access to the blog so that none of the citizens of Kentucky could view the site.
That's a pretty big difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my dime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
think
now I would have a real problem with the State or anyone else trying to block anything on the users computers at home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm from Kentucky!
"Section 77 relates to retrospective acts only -- the Governor is empowered to nullfy punishment. This was the ruling (dicta) of the Kentucky Supreme Court in Anderson v. Commonwealth, 107 S.W.3d 193 (Ky. 2003) -- opinion by Johnstone -- all concur! In the opinion (p. 196) the Court looked to the US Supreme Court's decision in Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974) for guidance from the English common law in construing a President's power to pardon under Article II. The Schick Court observed that the Constitution gives "plenary authority to the President to "forgive" the convicted person in part or entirely." Id. at 266. The Governor just has no authority to pardon indicted persons because there is no fine to remit, no sentence to commute and no punishment imposed from which to grant a pardon or reprieve. There sure as hell is no authority to pardon persons who "might" be indicted!"
That's the charge against him (For those who didn't know)
Of course, I believe the blocking of the website would have to do with the trial (Though I know not what the website may be)
I'm not a student of law, I'm just an under-age citizen of KY, so I don't know what I would classify the means to block a website (from opinions-Blog) due to a personal reason (Most likely anti-Fletcher pleas, because we do need someone other than him in office)
This not only conflicts with The First Amdendment, but I'm sure there's also some other laws which have been either broken, or strained.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private vs. State
Yes, corporations lock down certain access - because they must or they get sued. You pull up a porn page I see it over the cubical wall and I sue the workplace for exposing me to objectionable material that is not work related. Guess what, I get a big fat settlement because the company knows from previous cases that it will loose in court. Same situation if it was a hate sites. Even if a company believes its employees are productive with these non-productive sites accessible they still have to cover their butts and make an effort to keep the workplace PC.
The State runs the same risk if they leave porn, hate and other "objectionable" material accessible in the workplace.
Limiting access to this ‘opinion blog’ while at the same time not restricting all related blogs as objectionable content is not going to fly.
The clincher, if they had restricted all related opinion blogs they would probably still be going to court over it. – Big can ‘O worms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The decision says it; cannot block selective; must
ALL porn sites could be blocked;
ALL gambling sites could be blocked;
ALL Teddy Bear sites could be blocked;
ALL Blog sites could be blocked.
Only in China can you go around picking and choosing the information you want your citizens or employees to peruse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people didn't read the article
It's very simple, the state cannot censor the media at all. Whether it's one person's PDA, or it's the entire state. That's one of the reasons we worked so hard to take down Sadaam Hussein!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reading on state time.
Many gov't organizations, as well as corporations, allow employees to use their computers for personal or argueably non-official uses, but restrict that use to personal, not-on-the-clock time.
What's got people up in arms is the fact that the Governer of Kentucky has blocked access to a blog that is critical to HIM, and did NOT block any blogs that were not. That is what opens him up to charges of censorship. Block ALL blogs, and he's made a policy decision - block folks that get his undies in a pinch, and its censorship, got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, let the State of Kentucky ban porn blogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]