• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web

Yeah, I find that alot of right wingers are very concerned with broad terms now that a democrat is in office.

All in all, this is a stupid non-issue story. I don't want government employees playing games, checking out porn, watching movies or reading up on anything that could be considered "controversial opinion" on my dime. Let them do it at home.

I dont need to see citations and 'evidence'...but surely you have examples of conservatives attempting to block liberal sites? Conservatives dont have to attempt to limit extreme liberal "controversial" programming. the lack of viewership and commercial support does that on its own.

But see...here is the problem with taking the stance that its OK to block views not your own. Eventually...your guys arent going to be in power. And what happens when the next set of people are elected in...and they take "controversial opinions" to mean all those groups that YOU support?

Most government agencies already block some web content. On many federal installations, web access is limited to .mil and .gov domains. Thats fine...really. And at the end of the day...if it werent for that very generic term "controversial sites" I would think this a non-issue...completely appropriate.Just remember...once you start advocating and endorsing the limitations on speech you disagree with...well...you wont have **** to say when they are attacking speech you DO agree with.
 
I dont need to see citations and 'evidence'...but surely you have examples of conservatives attempting to block liberal sites? Conservatives dont have to attempt to limit extreme liberal "controversial" programming. the lack of viewership and commercial support does that on its own.

But see...here is the problem with taking the stance that its OK to block views not your own. Eventually...your guys arent going to be in power. And what happens when the next set of people are elected in...and they take "controversial opinions" to mean all those groups that YOU support?

Most government agencies already block some web content. On many federal installations, web access is limited to .mil and .gov domains. Thats fine...really. And at the end of the day...if it werent for that very generic term "controversial sites" I would think this a non-issue...completely appropriate.Just remember...once you start advocating and endorsing the limitations on speech you disagree with...well...you wont have **** to say when they are attacking speech you DO agree with.

Why do I need evidence of conservatives blocking liberal sites? I never made that claim...

Also, noones limiting freedom of speech dude. They're limiting what sites the can visit. Big difference.

If they find that they block only conservative sites or only liberal sites I'll be up in arms, but until then I'm going to point out that this is a non-issue that some overly sensitive butt-hurt republicans are trying to turn into a story.

Please point out where I agreed with blocking speech that I disagreed with...
 
Quick test....

Free Republican - Able to be accessed
World Net Daily - Able to be accessed
Rush Limbaugh.com - Able to be accessed
Drudge Report - Able to be accessed
Fox News - Able to be accessed (and is on in the gym 24/7)
Newsmax - Able to be accessed
Townhall - Able to be accessed
National Review Online - Able to be accessed
The Heritage Foundation - Able to be accessed
Glenn Beck - Able to be accessed
Newsbusters- Able to be accessed
The American Thinker - Able to be accessed
Conservapedia - Able to be accessed
The Daily Paul - Able to be accessed
Brietbart - Able to be accessed
Campaign for Liberty - Able to be accessed
Contract From America - Able to be accessed
Little Green Footballs - Able to be accessed
 
Why do I need evidence of conservatives blocking liberal sites? I never made that claim...

Also, noones limiting freedom of speech dude. They're limiting what sites the can visit. Big difference.

If they find that they block only conservative sites or only liberal sites I'll be up in arms, but until then I'm going to point out that this is a non-issue that some overly sensitive butt-hurt republicans are trying to turn into a story.

Please point out where I agreed with blocking speech that I disagreed with...

I accept that UNLESS it starts happening it is a non issue. And I PERSONALLY have no problem if they block ALL opinion sites. Its that very vague definition of 'controversial'
that has me edged. limiting access strictly to .mil and .gov sites makes good business sense...except of course that MOST phones can access internet...netbooks are dirt cheap...and not uncommon right next to peoples computers...etc

And if I mistook your first sentence (conservatives concerns for 'broad terms') wrong then my apologies.
 
Quick test....

Free Republican - Able to be accessed
World Net Daily - Able to be accessed
Rush Limbaugh.com - Able to be accessed
Drudge Report - Able to be accessed
Fox News - Able to be accessed (and is on in the gym 24/7)
Newsmax - Able to be accessed
Townhall - Able to be accessed
National Review Online - Able to be accessed
The Heritage Foundation - Able to be accessed
Glenn Beck - Able to be accessed
Newsbusters- Able to be accessed
The American Thinker - Able to be accessed
Conservapedia - Able to be accessed
The Daily Paul - Able to be accessed
Brietbart - Able to be accessed
Campaign for Liberty - Able to be accessed
Contract From America - Able to be accessed
Little Green Footballs - Able to be accessed

Thank you sir. I think we can move this into the nonissue category now.
 
I accept that UNLESS it starts happening it is a non issue. And I PERSONALLY have no problem if they block ALL opinion sites. Its that very vague definition of 'controversial'
that has me edged. limiting access strictly to .mil and .gov sites makes good business sense...except of course that MOST phones can access internet...netbooks are dirt cheap...and not uncommon right next to peoples computers...etc

And if I mistook your first sentence (conservatives concerns for 'broad terms') wrong then my apologies.

Why does it get you so up in arms though? It's a list for what type of sites they may block... Of course if you take things to a ridiculous extreme then you'll have something to worry about, but 99.99% of the time it turns out to be nothing.

About my first sentence, I just meant that it seems alot of conservatives are noticing these broad terms now that a Dem is in office, kind of like how a report, done almost completely under the Bush administration on right wing extremism gave some signs for officers to look for, and of course conservatives took this stuff to the ridiculous extreme that the Obama admin hated veterans and wanted to pull over everyone with a Ron Paul bumber sticker.
 
The list the memo says are blocked:



I wonder why that list was not included in the OP...maybe because it would make this seem pretty reasonable....

Way to be dishonest Redress. BN Rules if memory serves, states that you give an excerpt and link to, not a huge wall of text. I keep mine to the first couple of paragraphs. And note the number three item.. the one that's contentious...
 
No **** shurlock? The issue here isn't that they CAN block it, it's "What is a CONTROVERSIAL OPINION". I suppose, a good Liberal, and this being a Liberal Administration, you are unable/willing/capable of asking that simple question. The problem is, liblady, incase you didn't know this, the TSA is a Gov't entity... do you see the reason for concern? No? Didn't think you would but I had to atleast try.

The only reason of concern I have for the TSA is over the existence of the TSA in the first place. Other than that, this is a non-story. They can block whatever they want. But they are a worthless organization which has done nothing for the overall safety of the people nor have they made the skies any safer. It's bloated government bureaucracy and a waste of money.
 
Way to be dishonest Redress. BN Rules if memory serves, states that you give an excerpt and link to, not a huge wall of text. I keep mine to the first couple of paragraphs. And note the number three item.. the one that's contentious...

And yet that was needed context. I would have included the list, or at least mentioned that there was a whole set of things blocked from work comps, instead of making it sound as if only controversial opinions where blocked.
 
The only reason of concern I have for the TSA is over the existence of the TSA in the first place. Other than that, this is a non-story. They can block whatever they want. But they are a worthless organization which has done nothing for the overall safety of the people nor have they made the skies any safer. It's bloated government bureaucracy and a waste of money.

We should fall back on the Libertarian plan...if you get killed, sue who did it. That will work.
 
If I owned a business or ran a department, I would block sites like DP on all computers but mine.

I would block Redress' cat. All that cuteness would hurt productivity.
 
Why does it get you so up in arms though? It's a list for what type of sites they may block... Of course if you take things to a ridiculous extreme then you'll have something to worry about, but 99.99% of the time it turns out to be nothing.

About my first sentence, I just meant that it seems alot of conservatives are noticing these broad terms now that a Dem is in office, kind of like how a report, done almost completely under the Bush administration on right wing extremism gave some signs for officers to look for, and of course conservatives took this stuff to the ridiculous extreme that the Obama admin hated veterans and wanted to pull over everyone with a Ron Paul bumber sticker.

Extremes are almost always...well...extreme...like the concern that Arizona wants to enforce existing federal law and that means they will be asking every mezcan for zere papers and hauling them all off to prison...

I understand what you are saying. Of course the Beck/Olberdude types WILL take one or two words and make them mean the next holocaust is coming. However in this day of talk of revitalizing the Fairness Doctrine, talks of the need for the fed to control the internet...etc, i suppose its easy to get hackles up. I dont like the thought of limiting freedoms based on someones definition of controversial sites. Im fine with banning ALL non work related sites...ALL of them...
 
We should fall back on the Libertarian plan...if you get killed, sue who did it. That will work.

Do you prefer the Republocrat method? Freak out and don't question the government as it expands its powers against the rights and liberties of the individual, how's that? That's the plan you like? Well each to their own. But how many people have been killed on an airline? Before and after 9/11. The stats haven't really changed much at all, nothing which suggests that TSA is statistically important. Instead all we have is more and more restrictions, more and more scanning and searching and in the end, every once in awhile some crazy guy still gets on. We're no safer with TSA than without.

But don't let that fact stop you from making stupid little comments and trying to disparage the whole of the libertarian philosophy just because someone dare say something on an internet debate board. BTW, anything productive to add, or was that failed attack it?
 
Now it begins. I was soundly attacked by liberals and even a couple of liberals claiming to be conservatives for warning that the Obama Administration is following the game plan of the leftist dictators of history and Hugo Chavez. This is the first step to full on censorship and media control

Most of the Lame Stream Media are already in the Obama camp and he has people in hiz inner circle of Czars who want to take Conservative Radio stations away from owners and give them to Liberals.

Quoting Mark Loyd Obama's Diversity Czar "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.


Welcome to what Obama called hope and change.
 
Now it begins. I was soundly attacked by liberals and even a couple of liberals claiming to be conservatives for warning that the Obama Administration is following the game plan of the leftist dictators of history and Hugo Chavez. This is the first step to full on censorship and media control

Most of the Lame Stream Media are already in the Obama camp and he has people in hiz inner circle of Czars who want to take Conservative Radio stations away from owners and give them to Liberals.

Quoting Mark Loyd Obama's Diversity Czar "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.


Welcome to what Obama called hope and change.

Well you know, Obama is following Bush's playbook....so that doesn't bode well for the Republicans either then. But it's nothing I haven't said, peas in a pod and government wishes to make it's power absolute. Don't sit there and pretend that Bush wasn't doing similar stuff, that won't benefit anyone other than the established status quo complete with its new aristocracy.
 
Now it begins. I was soundly attacked by liberals and even a couple of liberals claiming to be conservatives for warning that the Obama Administration is following the game plan of the leftist dictators of history and Hugo Chavez. This is the first step to full on censorship and media control

Most of the Lame Stream Media are already in the Obama camp and he has people in hiz inner circle of Czars who want to take Conservative Radio stations away from owners and give them to Liberals.

Quoting Mark Loyd Obama's Diversity Czar "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

"In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution - a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled - worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government - worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.


Welcome to what Obama called hope and change.

damn my liberal employer. a bank, btw.
 
The Obama admin isn't doing anything different than any other Admin. Blocking websites that govt employees can access while on the job on government computers is nothing new.

Actually, I wish I had old emails, but I think most of the blocks being referenced occured prior to 2009.
 
The Obama admin isn't doing anything different than any other Admin. Blocking websites that govt employees can access while on the job on government computers is nothing new.

Actually, I wish I had old emails, but I think most of the blocks being referenced occured prior to 2009.

The headline "TSA restates already existing policy" doesn't make as good a talking point.

I caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh on the radio a little bit ago as I drove home. He was ranting about civil liberties, how TSA employees have all these rights against discrimination based on gender/ethnicity/etc, but not the right to view these websites. It was confusing to say the least, as I was not aware of any federally or constitutionally recognized right to fart around on the internet while on the taxpayers' dime. He talked about how Obama told college graduates in a speech that they should check out both sides, if you're a Limbaugh fan you should check out Huffington Post and vice-versa, "unless you work for the federal government, then you're not allowed."

Is Rush under the impression that this policy applies to the home computers of TSA employees or something!?
 
The headline "TSA restates already existing policy" doesn't make as good a talking point.

I caught a bit of Rush Limbaugh on the radio a little bit ago as I drove home. He was ranting about civil liberties, how TSA employees have all these rights against discrimination based on gender/ethnicity/etc, but not the right to view these websites. It was confusing to say the least, as I was not aware of any federally or constitutionally recognized right to fart around on the internet while on the taxpayers' dime. He talked about how Obama told college graduates in a speech that they should check out both sides, if you're a Limbaugh fan you should check out Huffington Post and vice-versa, "unless you work for the federal government, then you're not allowed."

Is Rush under the impression that this policy applies to the home computers of TSA employees or something!?
I heard it too. He's very lucky that most of his audience listens to him like the gospel and questions nothing. That's how he does. He makes it out like you can't visit drudge or his website if you work for the tsa (he specifically mentioned drudge and rushlimbaugh.com when mentioning sites you can't visit) and then when someone is correcting him on that, he goes on to lie about a different topic.
 
Well you know, Obama is following Bush's playbook....so that doesn't bode well for the Republicans either then. But it's nothing I haven't said, peas in a pod and government wishes to make it's power absolute. Don't sit there and pretend that Bush wasn't doing similar stuff, that won't benefit anyone other than the established status quo complete with its new aristocracy.

When did Bush embrace Chavez and have a czar talking about taking radio stations from Conservatives? Answer never.

You people need to get over the whole blame it on Bush or Bush did thing and respond to the Anti-American Obama's deeds and plans.

Obama will next be banning and burning books.
 
When did Bush embrace Chavez and have a czar talking about taking radio stations from Conservatives? Answer never.

You people need to get over the whole blame it on Bush or Bush did thing and respond to the Anti-American Obama's deeds and plans.

Obama will next be banning and burning books.

Dude an employer not allowing his/her employees to access certain websites is nothing new. Calm down the President isn't going to be banning or burning books.
 
Obama will next be banning and burning books.

How in the world do you go from blocking internet sites on government computers used by government employees that don't have a business related purpose to banning and burning books?
 
You people need to get over the whole blame it on Bush or Bush did thing and respond to the Anti-American Obama's deeds and plans.

So it's now anti-America for an employer to decide what sites that employees can access on company time while getting paid?
 
How in the world do you go from blocking internet sites on government computers used by government employees that don't have a business related purpose to banning and burning books?

I demand my constitutional right to visit facebook during work!
 
When did Bush embrace Chavez and have a czar talking about taking radio stations from Conservatives? Answer never.

You people need to get over the whole blame it on Bush or Bush did thing and respond to the Anti-American Obama's deeds and plans.

Obama will next be banning and burning books.

This is nothing more than hyper-partisan propaganda and hyperbole. Bush sought expansion of government just as Obama does now. The two act very similarly. Yet there are those who wish to close their eyes to the collusion of the Republocrats and believe that one side is worse than the other. The net result is that the bad side always stays in power with no check or control. The Bush-ites went through a long "blame it on Clinton" phase, yet that is forgotten once the tables turned. Typical partisan rhetoric. Bitch bitch bitch, but do nothing about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom