-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Message board censorship Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:55:04 -0500 From: Paul Levy <plevy@private> To: <declan@private> There has been a brewing controversy here in the DC area about Internet anonymity and message board censorship, fomented by the Washington Post. Last week, the Post broke the story that some of the messages posted by police officers in Montgomery County, participating on a message board under the aegis of the local of the Fraternal Order of Police that represents police officers, were racist or sexist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202525.html Copies of postings on the password-protected site were furnished to the Post which reprinted several of them. Hello-o-o-o, yes, individual cops can be just as obnoxious as any one else. The next day, the police chief was reported as demanding that the message board be shut down, and the union fought back, insisting that the bnoard provided a useful forum for the expression of member opinion, and besides, isn't it better to KNOW what people are thinking by allowing them to express their opinions? And one county board member was quoted as saying, "Chief Manger must take immediate action to remove any police officer who hides behind the anonymity of the Internet to attack the immigrants, the minorities and women they are hired to protect." The local NAACP joined the call for disciplining any police office found to have said offensive things anonymously. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302112.html Then, earlier this week, it was announced that Montgomery County had blocked its officers' access to the bulletin board from their work computers "because of the destructive effects these anonymous postings have had." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701658.html Then, in today's story, more messages are reprinted from the message board, incuding officers' reaction to the controversy. We hear that public officials are threatening that unless the police union does something about the bulletin board, there will be repercussions in collective bargaining ths fall. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033001911.html. So, the union is caving into the pressure, agreeing to monitor the bulletin board and remove statements deemed offensive, as well as "block access to members who post racist, sexist or other inappropriate remarks." The union's president "also will outline the types of messages that will not be allowed on the board. "We're drawing a line at any racist, bigoted, sexist or inappropriate comment," [the union's lawyer said." Not clear how many censors they will have working on the bowdlerization project, or what standards will be applied to decide what gets censored. Or course, like any other private group, the union has the right to decide what lines to draw about what gets said on its own message board. And, assuming that this local represents ONLY public employees union, the FOP is free from the "free speech" requirements of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. But the use of public funds (or the threat of withholding raises) to threaten the union unless it engages in censorship is troubling indeed. And you would think a newspaper might know better than to campaign for cutbacks in speech rights. Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Mar 31 2006 - 16:23:00 PST