Federal Agencies May Lose Funding For R&D Projects Because The NSF Didn't Fire An Employee Who Saw Porn

from the there-goes-the-sec dept

Fri, May 14th 2010 11:45am — Mike Masnick

Washington DC can be a funny place when it comes to negotiating legislation. Apparently, an effort to renew a program that provides billions in funding for important long term research efforts (you know, the kind of programs the government should be funding) may get held up over some amendments added to the bill... including one that would ban federal money going to any gov't employees disciplined for viewing porn on their computers. Effectively, the amendment means if you view porn on your computer as a gov't employee, you are fired. Actually, you don't even have to view the porn. The language says no federal funding can go:

"to salaries to those officially disciplined for violations regarding the viewing, downloading, or exchanging of pornography..."

Want to get a federal employee fired? Send them an email with a pornographic picture as an attachment. What does this particular amendment have to do with federal funding for research? Apparently, the guy who wrote the amendment says he's upset about giving money to the NSF, because it merely "disciplined" and suspended rather than fired an employee found with porn on his computer. Of course, give the recent revelations about porn web surfing at the SEC, if this goes through, say goodbye to the SEC.

Because no one wants to be seen as supporting government employees viewing porn, this particular amendment passed easily. We're coming up on election season, and you can bet no Congressional reps wanted to hand their opponents this line in a commercial: "While in Congress, Rep. X voted in favor of letting federal employees view porn on their computers..." or something along those lines.

Of course, that same amendment also pulls funding for a number of programs and may cause the entire bill to be withdrawn, leaving the status of funding for a lot of research in limbo. Now, I'm all for making sure that the funding is used in a reasonable manner, and if certain programs are ineffective, it's worth looking to see if they should be removed from the bill. But, to lump in decisions on funding with a program about firing employees who view porn just seems like a crass political ploy during a debate on a particularly important issue. It may be par for the course in Congress, but to those of us who actually care about innovation, it's stories like this that make us so cynical about the US government.

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

Filed Under: federal funding, nsf, porn, r&d

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 14 May 2010 @ 12:09pm

*eye roll*
As if it makes any difference!

If I'm paying a scientist to work for me, I don't care what kind of perv he/she is, as long as I get valid results on the research I'm paying for!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2010 @ 12:25pm

the republicants strike again. they cant get porn outlawed without violating the first amendment, so they do everything they can to demonize anyone who might see it. god has no place in government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 14 May 2010 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re:
  "god(sic) has no place in government."
  Honestly, if God will do a good job, then I could care less whether She's in government or not.
  
  ; P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
show me (profile), 14 May 2010 @ 12:51pm

Wording of the amendment
The small bit of the actual wording of the amendment quoted in the article says, "to salaries to those officially disciplined for violations regarding the viewing, downloading, or exchanging of pornography..." so all you have to do is if you catch someone viewing pornography, don't officially discipline them unless it is serious enough to warrant firing. What's the BFD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sneeje (profile), 14 May 2010 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: Wording of the amendment
  Well, if you are trying to establish a pattern of behavior for an employee that ultimately needs to be fired or disciplined, officially disciplining them is about all you can do. Because some federal employees are unionized (although this problem still applies if they aren't), there really aren't any repercussions you can impose unless there is an official record related to it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2010 @ 1:06pm

So if i Email my Congressman Porn, or the President, do they get fired??? so starting the email blitz :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2010 @ 2:17pm

mmm, does this mean that the Florida State Senate should no longer get government:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/floridas-mike-bennett-caught-viewing-por n-on-senate-floor_100359252.html
Oh, wait, he didn't actually get disciplined, did he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lux (profile), 14 May 2010 @ 2:30pm

Want to get a federal employee fired? Send them an email with a pornographic picture as an attachment.

I doubt just receiving an email with a porn attachment is grounds for any sort of disciplinarian action, but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a sensationalist statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 14 May 2010 @ 2:43pm

How 'bout...
Lets get a bill passed that withholds funding from those in government behaving in a stupid or egotistical manner!!!

Whoa!! That'll bring down the house, yeehaa!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2010 @ 3:16pm

I don't care if they lose funding, much of the proceeds of that research ends up getting patented by someone anyways and the public ends up having to pay twice to use it. Let them lose the funding, we can save the tax dollars instead of wasting it on research that we can't freely use because it will be patented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2010 @ 3:16pm
  
  Re:
  Not to mention the copyrights that the research publications wind up having.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 May 2010 @ 6:58pm

Sounds good to me. Fire all of the effing parasites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. Harl Delos (profile), 15 May 2010 @ 8:45am

There's A Legal Definition of Pornography
Pornography is illegal. One doesn't want to use the term "pornography" when disciplining an employee unless one can prove it. Otherwise, a big lawsuit may result.
What one can do is discipline employees for downloading workplace-inappropriate materials. That indicates a lapse in judgment, not a moral failure - and it doesn't present any problems in regard to this legislation. If someone is not downloading dirty pictures, but actually is downloading porn - which is pretty much limited to pedophilia or bestiality imagery (don't know why images are porn online but text isn't, but that's the law), one probably ought to handle it as a criminal matter, rather than as a human resources problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Perry (profile), 15 May 2010 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: There's A Legal Definition of Pornography
  in what part of the US is pornography illegal? I don't think you understand the term pornography if you think it's only applicable to pedophilia or bestiality. I'll link you to the Oxford dictionary just so you can easily educate yourself. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/pornography?view=uk
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]