Getting started in political blogging
AG Bill Schuette using his office as a right wing political tool
Wisconsin Democrats submit more than 1,000,000 signatures to recall Gov Walker
Asking for democracy is democracy in action
‘Choose Life’ plates would fund Right to Life through the Secretary of StateMike Bishop’s New Work Ethic – Ban The Blogs!!! on BFM
Well, now we’ve heard everything.
Thanks to fellow blogger & freelance writer Eric Baerren, we have some more “explanation” on why the Senate Republicans blocked access to BFM. Eric swapped some email with Matt Miner. Miner is Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop’s Chief of Staff and Propaganda Minister. Miner is the one who directed the Secretary of the Senate to block access to our site.
Before we get to Miner’s yip-yap, let me remind you of what he told MIRS yesterday:
“Michiganliberal.com doesn’t matter, they don’t say bad things about us.”
Get that? We matter, because we say bad things about them.
Lawmakers and staffers using the state Senate’s Internet server no longer can visit or post to a left-leaning political Web site, prompting backlash from bloggers and others who say it is blatant censorship and a violation of free speech rights.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop’s chief of staff, Matt Miner, late last week asked the secretary of the Senate to block access to http://www.bloggingformichigan.com. (By DAVID EGGERT The Associated Press)
For an electorate to make an informed decision…the people need information. The Blogging efforts of today’s people are a great democratic tool in the Federalist Papers’ sense. We are living in an age where people in free society can say anything about their government and not go to jail. A country where it allows its people to speak out is a country worth fighting for. A government that shuts down people because they don’t like what they’re saying reminds me on the GASTAPO that my grandfather fought against. There’s an OPEN Michigan Political directory http://lansing.zonecity.com/directories/Politics_–_Civics where anyone from any political thought can link their website to. I found over 200 Michigan political webpages from all over the political spectrum…A FREE Society is for FREE thinking people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Gastapo would have already killed you. Get real. You’re equating a close First Amendment case with Nazi Germany and the death of millions? This is how real issues get watered down.
This is interesting case – having reviewed Miner’s media statements makes me think a little harder about it that it might be closer than I thought (though they would still be free to raise my proposed defense). If its a violation of the First Amendment, why don’t you sue?
Finetuning my previous thought a bit: BFM claims itself to be a private space, private property, and private commerce (oh where art thou that liberal commerce clause) for purposes of excluding the likes of myself. For purposes of broadcasting to the Senate, it is trying to claim that it is on the public soapbox and can’t be regulated.
Which is it? Do you want the protections of private property and exclusivity in organizing private political efforts – or do you want a soapbox that reaches everyone?
The whole idea of Civil Rights legislation through the 1964 Civil Rights Act was premised on the notion that the government has the right (and indeed moral obligation) to not recognize exclusive covenants based on race, and indeed, when those covenants become part of commerce, government could even actively regulate them. The objection was that this violated a person’s free associational First Amendment rights – but the CRA doesn’t stop you from having black-only or white-only private interactions, it only stops businesses providing public accomodations from doing so. It regulates commerce in a narrow way. Government would have no obligation to carry, and indeed would be soundly criticized for doing so, a KKK blog to its staff employees. Why should government have an obligation to allow you this specific medium once you declared yourself to be a private entity with your own exclusive political access covenants (not to mention violating the principles (I understand that OMA doesn’t apply to legislative meetings) of Open Meetings Act – for example, Senator Schauer, as a “progressive” is allowed by BFM to post there, but I’m not able to confront his speech with my objections in the most relevant forum available – the comments sections which you’ve restricted from me – indeed, under some of the theories from your side, Schauer may be violating my right to petition government by selectively restricting or allowing restriction of my ability to comment on his items))? If the Detroit News declared that it would no longer accept letters from Democrats as a systematic policy, would Andy Dillon be violating the First Amendment if he cancelled the DN subscription? I don’t think so.
Indeed, the whole notion of Senator Schauer posting anything to a place where people are selectively denied access is offensive and a misuse of taxpayer resources.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It should be an interesting legal challenge. Maybe the ACLU will take it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting part of the AP story:
Christine Barry, who runs the site that is blocked, …
Now previously you’ve told me that you don’t run the site and you don’t make the decisions. Who runs BFM? Did the AP get this wrong? You might make this more clear in the next piece.
An ACLU suit would be a mistake. I can think of at least two theories now why it will fail (the second one relates to campaign finance law).
No one has actively censored you or BFM. You haven’t been punished for your speech. No rules have been made to constrain your speech. You can still directly reach anyone you want through any number of channels.
And you by your own admissions you claim your speech is on your “private property,” and you (BFM) have sought the protections thereof (to which you are entitled). The government has no obligation – indeed, I suggest it has some obligation not to – transmit the private political organizings of individuals. And it can “narrowly tailor” the protection of the compelling interest of not using taxpayer money for private political organizing through a policy that bans websites that themselves selectively ban members of the public. Your argument that if he bans one blog means he should ban them all suffers from a failure to narrowly tailor – if he blocked a wide swath of blogs he would indeed be violating the FA because it would not be narrowly tailored and it would interfere with speech that is not private political organizing that would be caught in its net.
It’s ironic – your policy could realistically cost you the case. I think it probably does, although I’m open to change my mind on the issue as the facts develop.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When I saw this, I was reminded of the “Gestapo” comment. The quote below is blog censorship (and “Gestapo” tactics). Just to put this Michigan story in a bit of context.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BFM last post criticizes Bishop’s office for:
How is Mardsen wrong? Your mission statement describes BFM as an exclusive “managed community” only for “progressives”. No debate by conservatives will be allowed. That is “overtly political”. How has Mardsen “slandered you”.
The fact that several of the posts are seemingly non-political doesn’t change the overall nature of the forum you’ve created. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for a forum designed as a “managed community” only for one political segment? As a “managed community,” that has exercised its (legitimate right to) exclude other members of the soley based on their (perceived) political ideology, BFM is now demanding that duly elected leader of a public body must provide resources to his employees – but only its “progressive” employees (since the conservatives are banned) – so that only those employees who are “progressive” can fully enjoy this privately managed community.
Is this starting to sound absurd, Christine? Ask Kary Moss how reasonable that sounds – before she wastes millions of dollars on a lawsuit.
Your entitled to the your private speech and any government punishment against you for that speech should be resisted with all our might. But you’re not entitled to make me pay for your privately managed communities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chet, we do not exclude people based on their political views. As you pointed out to me before, we prohibit debate with conservatives. That’s a behavior, not a group of people. I’m sure you were bounced because you’ve had a history of being banned in other places, like Michigan Liberal. I think my position is clear, that I do not agree with this policy. However, your position that we exclude an entire class of people is incorrect. We prohibit a particular behavior, not a group of people.
We have users who have signed up who we know are conservatives. They haven’t posted anything, but we haven’t banned them either.
As for who runs the site, I pay for it, and I run it within the framework of the rules set by the 3 member board.
Hopefully that clears some things up.
The “questionable political nature” … Let’s have the Senate Majority Leader announce to the press that your site is of questionable political nature. Then have the public view the data you present after having been told that it’s of questionable political nature by the government. Your site is tainted by the statement that it’s of questionable nature.
As to whether or not we have been punished for our speech, yes we have. We have been accused in the press of having access to Senate servers, and we have been dismissed as a non-informational site. Bishop’s office is devaluing our work. He’s mad at wizardkitten for her work on the Senate, so he’s slandering all of us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If it were a “behavior”, then my argument on the precise entry that I made on BFM speaking only of journalistic quality and not mentioning conservative viewpoints would have held water and been permitted to stay. Your argument is defeated by the specifics of the situation.
Regardless, your “semantics” here are shocking weak. “We do not exclude people based on their political views” but do “prohibit debate with conservatives” – is “conservative” not a political viewpoint? You say conservatism is a “behavior, not a group of people.” I think your point is that its a choice, unlike skin color, which is not a choice. I agree with that as framed (choice – conservatism is a chosen behavior, although those who choose it form a group), and I don’t think that anyone could rationally argue that your (BFM) choice to exclude others who choose viewpoints different than their is morally comparable to excluding someone based on attributes beyond their control, like skin color. That is, you’re within your private property rights to choose to associate with whomever you want to on private property (note: you can’t exclude me on public property), but even the racist is still free, albeit at a level of high immorality, to associate racistly on private property (the doctrines of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply only when you enter the public sphere of “commerce”).
So BFM has chosen the private sphere (you call yourselves a “managed community”) when it benefits it. The government has no obligation to rebroadcast the transpirations of events in the private sphere – and indeed, if individual Senators use taxpayer time to speak to them, they are giving a special benefit to a segment of the population.
Now, when it benefits it, BFM wants the full protections of the public sphere. When Sen. Schauer or Cherry write a memo on BFM, it can only be cheered (or maybe jeered but only from one perspective). Read the repost from Right Michigan I’m putting up next.
As to your choice distinction – all politics are choices or behaviors. You exclusive the entire class of people who make a choice you disagree with – nothing a priori wrong with that – its your choice but it puts you in the private sphere and doesn’t guarantee your forum the public soapbox you simultaneously demand.
If you pay for the site, but allow a policy you disagree with, you bear some personal responsibility for the site’s policy. I understand the need to work with people, but don’t run the responsibility of your decisions. You have chosen to allow personal censorship – you have chosen a forum that doesn’t build cross-partisan relationships but contributes to the poisoning of American unity. You have chosen to allow and foster a closed, community which I propose to you will be detrimental in the long-run to both your own cause and the “progressive” cause you aspire to. I think you probably know it to some extent. Look – I allowed djtyg to say I was taking talking points from the Klan on a YouTube video I control (and can delete response to), and all kinds of nastiness in places where it crosses my mind to press delete (I let them stay despite the temptation because I won’t set the personal precedent of censoring). Look at the nasty personal insults found on the last thread on ML attacking me — is that the image you want “progressives” to associate with? Is that proper behavior? You should be there condemning the nasty personal ad hominens when you see them. I respect Nick and RM for taking your side on this despite the issues it will create for him – I was tempted to take your side until I thought about it further.
Finally, as to Miner’s quotes. Some were plain dumb and cause me to question his perspective (though his perspective is independent of the taxpayer interest I articulate here). The “ML doesn’t say bad things about us” is a plain dumb thing. On the other hand, I suspect that some were lacking context caused by the nature of taking quotations. I doubt that this had anything to do with wizardK’s post (and the comment about “access to Senate servers” could be interpreted as either staffers had access OR you did and you assumed he was saying that you (WK/BFM) and you expanded that story by having WK “come out” (when she already was) and make a production of it – I think you yourself hit on it directly when you posted that it could be because he expected the series of posts by Senators (which would be a misuse of taxpayer time since I can’t equally participate on or access the used resources.
Finally, and perhaps the most telling thing, is your last paragraph. You confuse “punishment” with disagreement and condemnation. It’s almost funny when you say “Bishop’s office is devaluing our work.” You’ve been devaluing his work. As a matter of speech rights, he certainly has a right to reply by devaluing your work, and people can judge for themselves whose is of the least value. “Slander” applies to facts, not opinions. These are all opinions. I think Bishop’s office should have kept the opinions separate from the release relating to blocking you, but I think they were trying to convey the “overtly political” and biased-non-equal-nature of your site and couldn’t find precise language to do so (“non-informational” doesn’t strike me so much as an insult as it does an attempt to say the purpose of the site isn’t journalistic, its political organization building).
Bottom line, you’re not entitled to having your work “valued” or protection from devaluation. That’s the whole point of DEBATE, which you explicitly don’t allow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My cross-post at Right Michigan:
As I told Christine on her blog, this is a “close case”. I’ve also told Christine I’m open to changing my mind on this issue as facts develop. I hope you are too. Here’s the best (argument in defense of Miner.
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).
Note, under this doctrine, blocking ML would be legal also, but not any other blog that had open access rules.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Chet you were bounced, I’m pretty sure, because you have a history of the behavior that BFM doesn’t allow. John Galt (1, 2, and 3) was bounced because he engaged in trollish behavior.
Leon Drolet was not bounced. He’s a conservative. (Classic liberal, I suppose, but you know what I’m getting at here)
I really think if they didn’t know your history, your comment probably would still be there. However I can’t say for sure because I didn’t see the comment.
As for me devaluing Bishop’s work by criticizing what he does in the Senate … there are different rules for citizens and public officials. A citizen can criticize the actions of a Senator, and still have a reasonable expectation that she will not be targeted by that Senator.
I’m sure I’m not “entitled” to having my work protected from devaluation. However, for a State Senator to single us out because “we said bad things about them” and then tell the press that other blogs are informational, gives a blog like Michigan Liberal a competitive edge when it comes to advertising, traffic, etc. I’m paying for advertising to promote BFM, and Bishop is campaigning against me. So while I don’t know what the law is, I know he did something wrong.
On BFM, we do allow debate, just not progressive-conservative debate. As you can see on ML, there is plenty of debate to be had among progressives.
The value of a publication to the citizenry is not dependent on whether Chet Zarko can be published along side of it. Senators send out press releases all the time. You don’t get to write your response and have the press releases resent to all recipients. Still the press releases are not a “waste” of taxpayer dollars. (well, some are pure garbage, but you know what I mean)
The fact that you can’t argue with wizardkitten doesn’t mean that our site is political organizing, or that my economic development work is not journalistic. We’re not Move On, we don’t call for our readers to take any particular action. We don’t organize. We just put information out there.
Finally, I have, in the past, fought against the nasty attacks you mentioned, sometimes on your behalf. But there are only so many times you can fight with your friends until you want to just slit your wrists. So I just don’t do it all the time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So you judge people by the “history” other people allege? How bout a policy that judges people by their contemporaneous behavior. And how bout a policy that actually tells people why they were bounced. You own the thing, but aren’t able to tell me for sure why I was bounced? Such courtesies might actually be met with cooperation – but you guarantee polarization this way. Come on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I guarantee polarization? I think jumping around from blog to blog, arguing that access to BFM should be blocked is somewhat polarizing.
Yes, Chet, you were bounced because you were banned from other blogs. Sorry, but 2/3 is more than 1/3, and majority rules on the BFM board. But you didn’t win anyone over when you were out campaigning against us. And up until then, I was talking to WK & Z on your behalf. I don’t even see the point of trying now.
Jeesh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0