See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On July 6th, 2010 at 12:42 pm, J.J. Sefton said:

   So PORN SITES are not banned???!!!

2. #2
   On July 6th, 2010 at 12:45 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

   They should be. Office of Minerals Mgmt. Services couldn’t get enough of that.

3. #3
   On July 6th, 2010 at 12:45 pm, eCurmudgeon said:

   I approve of this.

   If anything, most government employees’ access to web sites should either be completely blocked, or restricted to a very small “whitelist” of sites that they actually need to do their jobs.

   It’s about productivity. Internet access is cheap, surf the web on your own time.

4. #4
   On July 6th, 2010 at 12:49 pm, Flyoverman said:

   Al Jazerra – Approved
   Drudge – Banned

   Nation of Islam – Approved
   Jerusalem Post – Banned

   Democrat National Committee – Approved
   Republican Nationa COmmittee – Banned

   General Motors – Approved
   Toyota – Banned

   Citco – Approved
   BP – Banned

   Rags, dollars to doughnuts you have already been banned by Big Brother….er Big Sis.

5. #5
   On July 6th, 2010 at 12:51 pm, DesertLover said:

   Will be interesting to see what the blocked access list looks like …

6. #6
   On July 6th, 2010 at 12:56 pm, TheWriteJerry said:

   Wait – TSA workers can read?

   Since when?

7. #7
   On July 6th, 2010 at 12:56 pm, drivingjack said:

   If you don’t need the internet to do your job then blocking it should not be an issue. TSA management would believe it’s dangerous to let TSA employees on it as they would learn the truth about their bosses!

8. #8
   On July 6th, 2010 at 12:56 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

   This is one of those things that I do not get upset over. I’d rather know why government employees on my dime have open and unhindered internet access to begin with.

   At my job we have an intranet. Tightly controlled. As it should be.

   If a government worker is in the role of surfing the web to monitor for possible terrorist threats there is a way to open access to folks for whom that is their job.

   Not ALL folks at TSA need open access.

   I want to know why folks who work for me have open unfettered access.

9. #9
   On July 6th, 2010 at 12:59 pm, walterc said:

   eCurmudgeon said:

   I approve of this.

   If anything, most government employees’ access to web sites should either be completely blocked, or restricted to a very small “whitelist” of sites that they actually need to do their jobs.

   It’s about productivity. Internet access is cheap, surf the web on your own time.

   On the other hand, if they are busy surfing the web, they’re leaving us alone.

   Government employees doing their jobs usually means a non-government employee getting screwed with. Particularly with Homeland Security.

   Maybe if we just block access to the guys in charge of tracking down terrorists and deporting illegals from club fed, and letting the rest of them read conservative blogs in between porn sessions, the economy could recover.

10. #10
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:00 pm, 24Klady said:

    IMHO – they should not have access to any sites other than those needed for their jobs (eCurmudgeon said it well). I’m betting a good part of the day is spent on cellphones, websites other than TSA, and Facebook – all while on the taxpayer’s clock.

11. #11
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:02 pm, madshark said:

    The categories include:

    • Controversial opinion

    When it comes right down to it, this statement is redundant, since all opinion has the potential to be controversial. Probably what they meant to say was opinion that doesn’t conform to political correctness.

12. #12
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:02 pm, theoldpath said:

    I actually work for the department of veteran’s affairs and am on my lunch time (that will make eCurmudgeon happy). About 6 months ago Michelle’s site was banned for about a day due to the controversial info. I actaully wrote Michelle and it was returned the next day. Never did hear is this was a glitch, or if Michelle actually contacted the departmetn of veteran’s affairs and took care of it.
    Porn on the other hand has been blocked since I have been employed here for over 8 years.
    It will be interesting which sites are restricted.

13. #13
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:03 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    I have no problem with blocking sites in a workplace. But I do have a problem with political bias in the site choices.

    If you can read the MSNBC opinion pages from thrilling leg boy or that other elitist dope who also covers sports and can’t get to Fox News, then that’s a problem, although would not be surprising at all.

    Flyoverman’s list may not be far from reality. Oh, if that gets out, DHS will make up some story then block everything. But you know what Janet Incompetano is looking to do.

14. #14
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:04 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    Of course now Rush, Drudge, this site, will proudly portray their “We are officially blocked by the TSA…” moniker.

    Wonder how we find out who is on the list?

    It’ll be the standard to which all conservative sites strive for. Sorta like the Good House Keeping Approval stamp.

15. #15
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:04 pm, DesertLover said:

    QUESTION __

    If they will have a “whitelist” of websites does that make the list “Racist”?

16. #16
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:06 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    On the flip side just think of the death blow being on the TSA’s “approved” site list will be. Who would even bother to go to those sites? This would be like liberal talk radio.

    This just keeps getting better and better.

17. #17
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:07 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    Controversial Opinion = Conservative Opinion

18. #18
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:12 pm, travlinman said:

    The point is not that the TSA is banning certain sites (interesting that ‘porn’ would not be banned), but rather the listing of “Controversial opinion” as one of the banned arena’s. If MM/Drudge/Limbaugh, et. are banned, but Kos and their ilk are not, can that lead to lawsuts? Chappy? Any of our other legal minds have an opinion?

19. #19
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:26 pm, right_on said:

    From “Controlling the message” to “Controlling dissent” to “Controlling oppositional thought?”

    Re-read history. This is how the transition from social collectivism in Europe began to transform into tyranny. These baby steps, turn into to violent strides, as the easily led masses convert the hand-fed pablum of class hatred into state sanctioned compliance…”For the ‘good’ of all!”

20. #20
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:31 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    You’ll notice that porn sites are not on the list of banned sites.

    This is so the $5 hour screener running the full-body scanner can upload your scan to their porn site to supplement their income.

21. #21
    On July 6th, 2010 at 1:34 pm, Speakup said:

    The Huffington Post won’t be deemed controversial, the President recommended patronizing there.

    Its all an opportunity to propagandize, even if censorship is necessary to achieve those ends.

22. #22
    On July 6th, 2010 at 2:07 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

    “This is how the transition from social collectivism in Europe began to transform into tyranny.”

    By telling workers what they can’t be looking at while at work on-line?

    Janet didn’t tell you what web sites you can or can’t go to.

    If a government organization cherry picks it will be common knowledge.

    As it is Janet stepped in it big time. You are missing the silver lining.

    She just admitted government workers are surfing the web at work. To deal with it she wants to limit access to certain sites. Oh really?

    This is one of those, “Did you stop beating your wife….” moments.

23. #23
    On July 6th, 2010 at 2:10 pm, beenthere said:

    This may not be as serious as one might suppose. I highly doubt they will ban National Review or the lame Corner. Those of you who have pinned your hopes for the future of conservatism on the likes of Mike Potemra and Rick Lowry (and dare I say Katherine Lopez and Jonah Goldberg?) need not lose any sleep. Heck, I even doubt they will block any of Mr. Power’s posts.

    They will block, however, SteynonLine, Debbie Schlussel (though her accusations naming just about everyone as an anti-semite may find some sympathy in Homeland Security) and FrontPageMag where the bloom of the Obama rose has definitely faded.

    Finally, I wonder if they will know what to do with townhall.com. There are a lot of open-borders nut cases on that site, but it also features Thomas Sowell. So what to do? Since nobody reads him anymore, however, they just might give the site a pass.

24. #24
    On July 6th, 2010 at 2:21 pm, letget said:

    I do not have a cell phone, but can’t you get information and sites on your phone anytime you want? At lunch or breaks? They could not block this, could they?
    L

25. #25
    On July 6th, 2010 at 2:29 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On July 6th, 2010 at 2:21 pm, letget said:

    I do not have a cell phone, but can’t you get information and sites on your phone anytime you want? At lunch or breaks? They could not block this, could they?

    Progressives spend 85% of their waking hours vainly attempting to create the perfect mousetrap. The other 15% of the time they spend blaming their lack of effective moustraps on Bush.

26. #26
    On July 6th, 2010 at 2:36 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Maybe they are banning “controversial” websites because they don’t see them as a threat to national security and so monitoring them is a waste of time?

    We must not be trying hard enough.

27. #27
    On July 6th, 2010 at 2:57 pm, Jeddite said:

    My employer blocks LiveJournal, MySpace and all things World of WarCraft. Curiously, we do not block FaceBook, and who wants to guess what the most popular website for browser homepages is here?

    I’d be outrageously outraged if sites like MichelleMalkin or HotAir were blocked, while HuffingtonPost and DailyKoS were not. Otherwise, reducing/controlling/monitoring employee internet usage while on the clock is hardlynot yet tantamount is overbearing BigSis.

    (ho ho ho ho lunch break)

28. #28
    On July 6th, 2010 at 3:17 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    J.J. Sefton said:So PORN SITES are not banned???!!!

    Well, there’s really nothing controversial about them.

    This reminds me… there is a new anti-bullying law in Massachusetts.

    Tower of Babel comes to mind here, the word ‘controversial’ and ‘bullying’ are weasel words for commie exploitation. Once they have such rules/laws they can bend the definitions of these nebulous words to whatever suits their agenda.

    ‘Diversity’ is what they say it is, something is ‘controversial’ if they say so and a ‘bully’ is anyone who exercises their 1st Amendment right to disagree with them.

29. #29
    On July 6th, 2010 at 3:53 pm, Mark said:

    Gov’t employees should not be surfing the web on OUR computers at anytime. The only exception is if they can prove a need to do so; FBI researching Union Corruption, anyone reading an article critical of Obama (good luck finding that), and images of the mess in Gulf (thanks Obama) as a reminder to how poorly they are doing their jobs.

    Really, unless they have a need to be on the Internet, kill the connection.

30. #30
    On July 6th, 2010 at 3:59 pm, spaceycakes said:

    So I Guess This Is Goodb

    it’s gold!

31. #31
    On July 6th, 2010 at 4:19 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    Once they have such rules/laws they can bend the definitions of these nebulous words to whatever suits their agenda.

    Sort of like what they’ve done with the words “…shall not be infringed”, or “…and under the jurisdiction thereof”.
    Of course, when they can smell rights from the ‘emanations’ of ‘penumbra’ from the Constitution, they can pretty much do anything.

32. #32
    On July 6th, 2010 at 7:18 pm, vickisoup said:

    Controversial opinion? That would mean that TSA’s and DHS’s own websites would be blocked. Hmmm….

33. #33
    On July 6th, 2010 at 7:35 pm, RhymesWithRight said:

    Come on — do we really want our government employees reading blogs rather than doing their job? Seems to me to be a similar policy to what my school district has — call it the “quit reading and start teaching” policy.

34. #34
    On July 6th, 2010 at 9:22 pm, dan708 said:

    On my recent St Croix vacation, I had rather mixed experiences with TSA personnel. At the St Croix airport, the lady who checked my ID was very sweet, while the guy who screened my luggage was bored, impatient, peeved, etc.