Let's try again.
Matthew Hooton has posted over at The Policy Blog that access to No Minister appears to be banned in many government departments.
I wonder if "the standard" or that other taxpayer funded labour site gets the same treatment? Any public servants care to let us know?
G
Hat Tip: Matthew Hooton
May 26 in history
5 hours ago
16 comments:
This is the way the totalitarian scum work. They focus on words like "inappropriate, or "offensive" or unsuitable". All that subjective crap, and they gradually move political ideas they don't agree with in to those categories.
That's why political correctness is so dangerous. That's why the constant refrain of "abuse" and "offensive" has to be resisted. Its all in the end designed to limit freedom of expression. All part of the totalitarian plan.
Believe me, this country is in the hands of some evil people. Some of us know what it means to lose freedom, and win it back, and lose it again, and it worrying to see right here within NZ the very language and actions that preceded the loss of freedoms we have witnessed in the past. No real knowledge of history you see. That's one of the reasons they find it so easy. One of the reasons the blind fools who support this crap are so easily manipulated.
Read Roland Huntford's "The New Totalitarians". Its all made clear.
Persona (or blogga) non-gratis in Helengrad? Look on the bright side, you're in very good company.
Don't worry, in 2 months we can get The Standard blocked in govt depts.
Maybe we could go for the trifecta and get gummint banned forever.
I see the Standard has a view on this, along with the only-to-be-expected graceless condescension of the "small rightwing blog No Minister." Have a look at TUMEKE's rankings - if we're "small," what does that make No Right Turn or The Hand Mirror - microscopic?
UntiI was scooped by our own Grant, I was to post on his matter tonight, once I had gained a wider picture of what is happening at the various government departments.
The Standard kindly let me bypass their ban to post the following comment-
"Thanks everyone
I heard today from a fellow, or maybe that should be fellowess blogger, that No Ministry was banned from her place of work, a large government department.
Yet, other blogs, I’m sure you can guess which, could be accessed easily.
I asked this blogger and one other to make a few enquiries to ascertain the situation, and one of them alerted Matthew Hooton who then made his own post seeking information.
I had said to them I would make my own post this evening when I was more aware of what was going on. I even had one of my old pictures of Dear Leader to use on standby
As a technology/business journalist, I can see how websites can be blocked for various reasons, it might not necessarily be political, though it is strange that No Minister is blocked at one government department when other controversial blogs are not.
I was happy to hold off posting for now, but my co-blogger Grant decided to post something on No Minister.
And that is the situation we have. Somehow No Minister cannot be accessed in certain government departments, but apparantly it can in others, while similar blogs are fine. Why is this?
I will be contacting WebMarshall/MailMarshall.
Anyway, thanks for the publicity. No Minister is not that small and on some days, a few weeks back, our Alexia ranking exceeded that of The Standard. But yes, the Standard has a higher Alexia ranking now.
As for me, I work freelance as a journalist, I am not unemployed. The ex-policeman is a lawyer and the retired chap , if you mean Adolf, is gainfully employed in the finance sector. So Ruth, you might want to get your facts right.
[lprent: You're still banned. However it is appropriate to ignore it in this case since we did a post related to your site. ]
It should be noted that a reasonable amount of Adolf's posts are racist or misogynistic, or both. If your blog has been banned I'm guessing its because the content has simply been deemed offensive. If The Standard were in the habit of posting endless racist attacks I suspect they would get banned too.
If your blog has been banned I'm guessing its because the content has simply been deemed offensive.
I posted over at the Standard that the swearing alone here (which is actually mostly from me, apart from our commenters) would be enough to trigger filters like WebMarshall.
On the other hand, if your theory is correct and govt depts really are blocking this site because of the honestly-expressed opinions of its authors, that would in itself be extremely offensive and a state assault on freedom of speech.
On the other hand, if your theory is correct and govt depts really are blocking this site because of the honestly-expressed opinions of its authors, that would in itself be extremely offensive and a state assault on freedom of speech.
It's not unusual for companies or government departments to block access to sites they deem offensive. Most block access to pornographic sites, for example. It is not an attack on freedom of speech, rather that organisation exercising its own right not to have to listen.
On the other hand, if your theory is correct and govt depts really are blocking this site because of the honestly-expressed opinions of its authors, that would in itself be extremely offensive and a state assault on freedom of speech.
A bit like Labour and the EFA.
It is very odd, as it is quite easy to access other sites inside MOH that display much worse material. So it seems that No Minister is being singled out.
What is more pornographic than socialists waiving their little political dicks around?
Keep up the good work boys and keep pissing off the pissants at the Standard. I believe they are behind this outrage.
It is not an attack on freedom of speech, rather that organisation exercising its own right not to have to listen.
As an IT Manager, I'm naturally wholeheartedly in favour of the organisation's right to block its staff's access to anything non-work-related on its own computers.
That said, if my bosses wanted something blocked on the basis that they didn't like the opinions expressed on it, I'd argue with them against it, because it's wrong. The expression of honestly-held opinion is not in the same category as pornography.
"It is not an attack on freedom of speech, rather that organisation exercising its own right not to have to listen."
There you'd have as good an illustration of the thinking processes that underpin tyranny as you could ever wish to see. (or wish not to see). This from a self styled "academic", shows just how far down the black hole of totalitarianism this country has sunk under the social ascendancy of the left.
Danyl said...
"It should be noted that a reasonable amount of Adolf's posts are racist or misogynistic, or both."
Eh? A Maori can't be racist according to most PC doctrine I've ever seen implemented.
(I am right, Adolf, in thinking you are tangata whenua?)
the Socialists are getting really desparate when they have to resort to Joe Stalin tactics
never mind they will be gone come 8th November Only 51 days unyil Xmas
gd
Has anyone else noted at Helen Clark's Facebook page, all wall posts are down, and all discussions boards have gone. Was it all too negative, maybe?
Post a Comment