I disagree.

Access should be limited to what is needed to do the job.

In reality, however, Bishop's acts interfere with accomplishing meaningful reform. His intellect and right to lead have to be called into question with this shortsighted political move. I'm a Conservative who is focused on RESULTS. His stunt has brought more exposure to the banned website than they would ever accomplish otherwise. The focus the next few days will now be a pissing contest instead of confronting the MEA on healthcare and pensions and looking at significant cost savings within Corrections.

The rhetoric of BFM makes it seem otherwise (that this isn't a "close call"), but BFM is the only blog censored.  BFM itself censors ALL CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS.  Explicitly and clearly, in its mission statement.  It has executed that policy at least once (myself).  BFM calls itself a "managed community" of progressives.  Both BFM and ML have defended their censorship and exclusionary policies on the grounds of "private property" and "First Amendment ASSOCIATIONAL rights" (that other clause of the FA).  The blocking of BFM began shortly before or shortly after Senator Schauer and other Senators were expected to have a series of posts on BFM. This forced Schauer and Deb Cherry to post to BFM from private computers (though it didn't stop them).  While at first glance this starts down the road of a censorial action - let's consider that.  If Schauer had been allowed to use Senate resources to enter this quasi-private political organizing community, a whole category of other people would have been censored and had their tax money used for exclusive purposes.  (Quasi-private, because its like a glass room, I can see into but I'm locked out of it)  Conservatives citizens, and even conservative Senators, are not allowed to post on BFM.  So use of BFM is a one-directional, completely political forum.  This is the classic definition of what campaign finance and state ethics laws prohibit use of state money for.  Whether those laws violate the First Amendment may indeed be an active question, but it no doubt is what Miner could be thinking of when he refers to erring on the side of ethics.  In the converse, a second angle to the legal (and moral) defense of the action is that government, ever since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, has held to the doctrine that it doesn't recognize or carry out "restrictive covenants".  It does this in a "narrowly tailored" way - you still have an associational right to discriminate on race PRIVATELY in your own home and personal life, but as soon as you step outside it and engage in "commerce", you're subject to the CRA.  Not only is it hypocritical for BFM to cry censorship when it is itself a censor - its censorship has moved its speech from the public soapbox to the protections of the private domain.  The Government has no obligation to rebroadcast such speech.  BFM wants to have it both ways.  If BFM changed its policy, I'd change my position to be solidly on its side, notably because an open BFM is neither in the private sphere nor is it abusive to taxpayer interests since ALL taxpayers can cheer or jeer Senator Schauer and Senator Cherry's speech.  If Schauer steps out onto the Capitol steps and speaks, he can not only be seen on TV (if they pick it up), he can be cheered by progressives standing there, or jeered by conservatives standing there.  BFM allows only cheering and prohibits jeering - its NOT A PUBLIC FORUM.

On the other hand, Miner's statements to Gongwer or MIRS about Michigan Liberal "not saying bad things," are plain stupid and harm his case enormously.  If that's the reason, the motivation is a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment (though my defense can still be raised and still applies as the taxpayer interest existed whether Miner saw it or not).

More than that, however, blogs can be a good way of tracking down information. When I was in the state House, I frequently researched state issues using google to find sources, but also did blog searches to track down information.

Liberal, conservative, libertarian and even communist blogs (hi, all you BAMN members) often link to newspaper articles or studies that I would have otherwise missed.

But most importantly, as with any one of us, at work you should and can be regulated from sites that don't pertain to your job at hand.
Both sides of the isle should be regulated from such 'None job related surfing' and save it for your time, not "Our Time".
As with my job, being Management, I am barred from checking such things as my personal email.

The Liberal Left is poison to America, and I think Bishop understands this.

Chetly, your hypocrisy is rank.  You complain about supposed censorship at BFM, but I never have seen you complain about the conservative on right wing blogs such as RM, The Drudge Report, or others.

I don't complain about it because I know both sides want to get their message out there, and that's fine.  But don't be playing the moral high ground by accusing people who don't agree with your politics of censorship.  Your real problem is with our politics, not our methods.

Its politics as usual as I see it.

Does that stop anyone from going out to the nearest internet cafe? Hmmm not that I noticed.

So it IS only a LOCAL block OUTGOING and Corrigan is not in a gulag. She says that she gets her hot intel from the Senate Journals. Has she been blocked from this acccess? Has email been blocked or spam filtered? Or is someone on a senate staff politicing on the time clock?

But....but...but Corrigan has been rendered deaf and dumb (have you seen the assinine picture [tape over eyes and mouth and is blocking her own ears so she cant hear] on her site?) by the Senate having instituted a direct access block outgoing from the senate. Yup yup yup...she has been rendered to Helen Keller status by this, totally out of touch with the world! Give me a break!

But thanks for stopping by.

Even so, I doubt I'll be able to post about universal healthcare on this blog anytime soon.:)