digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

U.S. military's blocking of liberal websites getting worse

wonkette.com — A soldier on his third tour of Iraq writes, "Every non-conservative politics website has been blocked. They don ’t have a reason to block it but they do, just in time for mid-term elections. Liberal sites are blocked. Conservative site are not. They have taken away many of the freedoms that we are supposedly fighting for."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -19/+114yep, its true. and the only thing they have on the tv's around the buildings is faux news
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/12/2007, -74/+21Should they show CNN (which is about as bad), MSNBC, etc.? They are all equally intolerable. I vote that they show SciFi or Comedy Central or something like that and let the soldiers get their news from the web.
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -27/+103I know I'm going to get dugg down for this, but I've got to say it: apostrophes are never, EVER used to indicate plural. Where did you learn this? Stop doing it!

      TVs, not "tv's".
    • Soniti, on 10/12/2007, -75/+35That's not faux-news, that's the AFN. Armed Forces Network.

      I'm their weatherman, and honestly, I think that they do a great job reporting the news. :P Watch sometime, and you might see me.. Oh wait- Watching AFN would be anti-democratic, because God forbid you should watch anything that supports the war, and this current administration.

      ~Soniti
    • SenorPez, on 10/12/2007, -35/+25Re: Chompy

      Wrong. TV is (though not by the traditional definition) an acronym (TeleVision), and thus, "TV's" is correct by the standard rules.

      http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/acronyms.html

      The error in not capitalizing "TV," however, is perfectly incorrect.
    • guregu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30I am not discounting what the article states but I want to point out that most U.S. Navy ships pickup CNN International and AFN. Our ship had an antenna solely to pickup CNN International from a satellite while out at sea. It looked like a very large ping-pong ball. News and political websites were not blocked for us, although I served from 1998 to 2002.
    • danielwsmithee, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16I'll believe it when they give some examples.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29On a .mil network right now and dailykos, slate, etc.. all seem to work for me.
    • soogy, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3@SenorPez
      TV is a noun. Who taught you grammar?
    • klaruz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Soniti: While I agree it's your job on the AFN chan to support the war and the president in order to keep moral high, don't for one second think your chan is some sort of unbiased true news source. Being in the military, you're not allowed to do drugs, so I'm sure there's no way you think that could be the case anyway.
    • osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8Chompy - Yea man, I am a fellow grammar/apostrophe nazi, but acronyms are commonly accepted in both forms. I actually do put apostrophes when pluralizing those terms, such as ABC's, VLAN's, and IOU's. You may want to think a bit longer before shooting off at the mouth next time and looking silly.

      Soogy - Read SenorPez's link, it's okay to use both.

      "One unusual modern use of the apostrophe is in plural acronyms, like “ICBM’s” “NGO’s” and “CD’s”. Since this pattern violates the rule that apostrophes are not used before an S indicating a plural, many people object to it. It is also perfectly legitimate to write “CDs,” etc"
    • wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29@ Soniti - That's AFN it stands for All Fluff Network as they never report the news just propaganda and PSAs. I know, I watched it and listened to it for a good majority of the 20 years I served. Y'all do a great job and thank you for your service, but don't try and pipe sunshine (no pun intended) up my butt and tell me everything is fine when all I have to do is look out the window and tell you it's not.
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Chompy - Yea man, I am a fellow grammar/apostrophe nazi, but acronyms are commonly accepted in both forms. I actually do put apostrophes when pluralizing those terms, such as ABC's, VLAN's, and IOU's. You may want to think a bit longer before shooting off at the mouth next time and looking silly."

      Commonly accepted doesn't make it grammatically correct. I'm sorry, but you're wrong to use the apostrophe that way, and you look like an idiot to anyone who actually knows how it's supposed to be used.

      As for looking silly, my statement is at about 60 diggs while you're at -6.. I don't think *I'm* the one looking silly.
    • kumari82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4There isn't a central list of blocked sites. It falls to the ITs at the individual det sites.

      Blogs sometimes get blocked, just as a blanket sort of thing.

      This guy might have a complete prick running his network, but it isn't DOD policy.

    • kumari82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ wvdavis

      AFN has changed a lot. I watched it as a kid growing up and I'm watching it today. There's a big difference.

      They split it in to eight channels. You do get some Fox news junk, but they devote equal time to CNN and others. You can catch the Daily Show and Colbert report everyday.

      It used to be pretty freakin' horrible though. You're right on that.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This isn't new! Almost every military in the world has spread propeganda to it's troops for hundreds of years. It has it's uses. If they start slacking b/c of poor morale over in iraq, they'll get torn apart.
    • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1F'ing ***** People! Its just an apostrophe! Did you understand what I meant? Yes, of course you did. Otherwise you wouldnt be trying to 'correct' me. So why you want to even bother with correction of a sentence that doesnt really matter anyway is beyond me.

      Anyway, go here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronyms#Plurals_and_possessives) to learn that both TV's and TVs are accepted as grammatically correct. You'll also learn that the form TVs came into use after TV's did.
    • wvdavis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ zediker - Dude, breath... in through the nose.. out through the mouth. If that does not work, try a shot of Cabo.
    • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2sorry if I came across angry. Cause im not. I just wanted to point out that it really doesnt matter what I typed as long as people understood what I meant.
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"sorry if I came across angry. Cause im not. I just wanted to point out that it really doesnt matter what I typed as long as people understood what I meant."

      If someone says "Let me axe you a question", you understand what they mean but they still sound like an ignorant moron. Ditto on mispellings and misued punctuation. In a forum where text is the only medium of communication, grammar matters.. unless you just *want* to look like an idiot. Don't want to be corrected? Learn how to use english properly.
  • wicherspm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+87I am one of the "firewall guys" he refers to, the proxies we run are not updated by DoD, rather an outside company. He did not say what conservative sites he went to, but you can see that it is not DoD that put the site on the blocked list.
    http://www.securecomputing.com/sfwhere/index.cfm

    It is true that Fox News is on every TV though
    • elhaf, on 10/12/2007, -41/+15Oh, I get it. The liberal sites are blocked because of traffic, whereas the conservative sites don't have anyone actually visiting them. Actually, liberal sites tend to cuss (profanity) whereas conservative sites don't.
    • oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -64/+12First of all, if you are in the military, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. You sign away all of your rights when you enroll. You can't very well complain of censorship, especially when the military can say it's a time of war (although it's more like a time of occupation).

      When you use a military computer on a military network, you should expect that the military is allowed to allow/block sites, computers, subnets, etc. at their discretion, irrespective of why they are blocking it.

      I have heard both positive and negative affirmation of blocked sites. I don't believe that the entire military everywhere in the world blocks the exact same list of domains (although it's plausible). It sounds like some people are able to read what many would consider liberal sites.

      I, personally, would equate this to Microsoft setting MSN as the default search engine on Internet Explorer... you see the default effects/settings unless you know a little more and adjust your browser (i.e. set a proxy or a tunnel to bypass plaintext firewall rules). -- Please don't sue/arrest me under the DCMA for "leaking" that top secret info.

      FoxNews is Cheney's official station, didn't you hear? Why would the "Commander in Chief" want you to watch anything else when that is the only channel that won't mock him?
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+51@oxyrubbe

      The military is supposed to be Non-political. As far as I can tell, Fox is the most political new biased channel out there.

      One of my friends in the military stated in the 2004 election, people in suits can by to his units and made strong suggestion they all vote for Bush.
    • zorvi4, on 10/12/2007, -6/+42Right our chow hall shows nothing but fox news. Something needs to be said about this. Oh right we can't say anything. The military is suppose to be neutral in this way. I just don't get it.
    • iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18"Right our chow hall shows nothing but fox news. Something needs to be said about this. Oh right we can't say anything. The military is suppose to be neutral in this way. I just don't get it."

      $20 says if you took a vote Faux News would win.
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -5/+43"...the proxies we run are not updated by DoD, rather an outside company"

      Interesting, more evidence that this war is the most privatized ever. Pretty much a corporate government in the US at this point.
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -27/+7" As far as I can tell, Fox is the most political new biased channel out there."

      Fox might be biased but so is every other news network. More are left than right.

      Read this UCLA study about media bias:
      http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

      "Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

      Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

      The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third."

    • vanetta, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4If you see that Fox News is playing, it is probably because whoever turned on the TV likes Fox News; the same goes for CNN. Try changing the station, typically works for me. If you don't have access to the remote/tv simply ask whoever does. If that individual doesn't let you watch CNN (etc.) then that is the opinion of that individual or whoever ordered them to do it. There is no universal military instruction that says "CNN-Bad, FOX-Good." Just bring it up your chain of command or the individuals chain of command.
    • osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3oxyrubber - It may be legal, but it's still ***** sketchy and not honorable to do.
    • Dregga, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@killinger777:

      That is the most biased ***** study ever.

      See here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003

      But I know you're in denial about everything that contradicts your worldview, so I'm really wasting my time.
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why do you have "firewall guys" and block lists in the first place? I cant imagine how it would be a national security issue. And is fox news honestly the best source of news for the people on the front lines? I mean, dont you have briefings and stuff or is fox supposed to take care of that?
    • storm8956, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@killinger777

      "In fact, if the system functions well, it ought to have a liberal bias, or at least appear to. Because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve to bound thought even more effectively. In other words, if the press is indeed adversarial and liberal and all these bad things, then how can I go beyond it? They're already so extreme in their opposition to power that to go beyond it would be to take off from the planet. So therefore it must be that the presuppositions that are accepted in the liberal media are sacrosanct -- can't go beyond them. And a well-functioning system would in fact have a bias of that kind. The media would then serve to say in effect: Thus far and no further."

      - Noam Chomsky
    • tom500k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And prey tell, who pays you for your blocking? Is it the DOD or are you merely a subcontractor to a subcontractor of DOD? Do you even know if ultimately DOD is paying you for censorship or not?

      What are you doing, "Just following orders"? Whose orders?

    • wicherspm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ tom500k Actually I am a member of the Air Force, we use commercial solutions for network security.

      @ drizek Why would any company have block lists set up, are you saying you would trust everyone to behave themselves on the internet
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You trust them with rifles, snipers and tanks but you dont trust them on the internet?
    • wicherspm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, the DoD is a government agency, we cannot have people looking at porn. Also, the proxy helps us prevent phishing, scams, and viruses. If you can find a network with 10,000 people on it that does not use a proxy I would like to see it, I am pretty sure this (using a proxy) is an acceptable practice.
  • OBDriftwood, on 10/12/2007, -65/+15The military has always censored communications for the military. It is one of the many great sacrifice these heroic Americans make.

    It would make sense to block websites that would decrease morale. Nothing particularly sinister about that.
    • Elohir, on 10/12/2007, -9/+48Sure, as long as they can't vote.
    • Platypus3333, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36If that is indeed the goal, I daresay it might be undermined in a day and age where people can so easily become aware that their information is being censored.

      In that context, I can't see it helping morale.
    • schrodiggity, on 10/12/2007, -12/+21doncha think blocking liberal websites has a negative effect on morale? from what i've been hearing most guys on the ground there have pretty liberal views of the war.
    • jadedconformist, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37Yeah, I agree. Nothing wrong with blissfully unaware, uninformed soldiers fighting for us.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17This is horrifying. Someone needs to tell Republicans to SUPPORT OUR TROOPS.
    • steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19It just goes to show that our government must not think our military men and women cannot make their own intelligent decisions. If they are good enough and smart enough to fight in Iraq, why can't they watch and make their own minds up? That's bullcrap
    • shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12So your reasoning is feeding propaganda to the troops is good for morale? I'm sure you would have been a fine officer under Comrade Stalin.
    • shirosamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"most guys on the ground there have pretty liberal views of the war."

      I'd imagine 80% of soldiers that go to the front lines of war would come back having a 'liberal' view of war. In fact, as a little sociological experiment, how 'bout we draft every war-supporting Republican off to Iraq and see how they feel about war afterwards? Now that'd be interesting.
  • Subiklim, on 10/12/2007, -38/+7I can see that. Why show the soldiers news that is not factual, slanderous, and brings down their moral?
    • nblsavage, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29"I can see that. Why show the soldiers news that is not factual, slanderous, and brings down their moral?"

      They are...remember FOX news is on all their TVs.
    • Subiklim, on 10/12/2007, -31/+5@nblsavage
      I know people like you LOVE being on the bandwagon, but fox is a helluva lot more neutral than CNN, MSNBC, etc. (and that's not saying much!)
    • TexasCanuck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Dude, please give me some of what you are smoking if you are saying Fox is more neutral than MSNBC... CNN, I can understand, but MSNBC ? Come on... Keith Olbermann is pretty much the only talking head on television today that comes close to calling it like it is...
    • 1337Einstein, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7I hate fox, but Olberman is every bit as biased as the guys on fox, only on the opposite side of the political spectrum
    • bledbetter, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4@TexasCanuck

      HAHAHAH! Olby? NEUTRAL? Mr. Frothing-at-the-mouth-at-EVERY-Republican-out-there?

      Talk about smoking stuff... Geez.
    • Antitorgo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6Bwahahaha... Only on Digg would you see a guy saying Olberman is neutral and getting dugg up for it and the people calling him on it get dugg down. Is this astroturfing or does Digg really lean that far left?
  • gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6classic.
  • fnaqzna, on 10/12/2007, -11/+39Puh-leeze.

    I work for the military. I'm on a military computer right now. It's on a military network... and you know what? I can read the Wonkette's site. I can read Crooks and Liars. I can read DailyKOS. I can even read the Nation. I can read damn near everything.... er... except for porn.
    • Thud, on 10/12/2007, -19/+27Come on now, don't let logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
    • jadedconformist, on 10/12/2007, -23/+8Get back to work, Dubya
    • Arbus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28And nobody reads porn anyway, so you're doing fine!
    • fnaqzna, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5@jadedconformist

      LOL... perfect.
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9Are you in Iraq? The claim is that access from Iraq is blocked, so if you aren't in Iraqnam your claim isn't worth the stink on *****.
    • cfsynergydotcom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Im with fnaqzna; Im on a MILNET computer all day (Go Air Force! Woohoo!) and read DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, Wonkette, etc.
    • jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Are you on a military computer in Iraq?
    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3fredrated
      How the hell can you say anything about somebody else's stink being worth *****. Where are you???? (You inconsiderate prick.) Sitting in a campus library someplace?/ Or waiting for your unemploymnet check????
    • fnaqzna, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@fredrated and jaycliche:

      If you read the DailyKOS, linked from Wonkette ("blocked by the Pentagon"), it's makes no mention of Iraq whatsoever.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/25/03133/7597

      Try to keep up.
    • kuromimi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@Urusai
      Good point! I never thought about it that way. Another person I can't remember that got dugg down metioned that the military may block stuff they consider harmful to morale. Putting all the other controversy aside, I would do the same thing. With elections coming soon, the timing is interesting, though.
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -12/+36They're not fighting for the United States, or the good of its people, they're fighting because George Bush wanted them to.

    Citizens have a chance to make the difference, GET OUT AND VOTE.
    • Subiklim, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7You forgot to say John Kerry, Hillary Clinton also supported the war. Hell, the majority of the senate!
    • htproto, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5I'd like to see you say that to marine and see what he thinks of you.
    • chulium, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6That is one of the most disrespectful comments towards the armed forces that I've ever heard.
    • flernk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8@htproto
      A Marine like John Murtha? Oh wait. He's a traitor. Isn't that right?
    • mattman59, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8The smart ones agree, most of them will want to kick your ass, just like anyone else at the trailer park.
    • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@htproto

      A growing number of people in the armed forces aren't seeing this war as a benefit to the country. They fight in our name, through the midguidance of our leader.

      No disrespect to those who serve, but directly to the president.
    • htproto, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4The same John Murtha that Voted for the war, then against, then wanted to send more troops, then pull all troops? It would almost seem his heart was in the right place until his party tells him what he has to do.
    • teutonischeord, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12 The problem is that we have no real choice in the election , two parties , both corrupt , interested only in their own reelection and power . A very high percentage of politicians are bought and paid for WHORES . In order to have a real choice we should have at least 5 or 6 parties like most European countries do and they then form coalitions . Our two parties do not allow any 3rd party to join in the debates and in the political process . They are quite happy in playing musical chairs and taking turns at power , you have a choice of Tweedledee or Tweedledum . Either way we lose !
    • APretender, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I'm in the military right now. For the record, no, most of us do not believe in the war. We're fighting because we (possibly mistakenly) signed up to defend our nation. It turns out that we now bully others.

      I did vote, you jackass. And my candidate lost. Does that make it my fault that I'm put in harms way every day of my life? Don't get me wrong, I take responsibility for signing the contract and thus shipping myself over here. But don't preach to me about voting. Many of us are completely innocuous when people begin talking about how this administration is doing a piss-poor job of management, however, when you begin blaming Americans for putting us in this mess, we quickly take offense.

      Please, I beg you, attempt to temper your idiocy with a little sensitivity.
    • hosiah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@teutonischeord

      Your insightfulness stands out from the Right-Left flaming like a beacon in space.
    • zorvi4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well said Joe rigby, you hit the nail on the head.
  • chulium, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5In WW1, President Roosevelt did the same thing. (Although with print propoganda, not blogs, of course) - and for good reason. Morale is half the battle.
    • skellener, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Truth is more important. Leaving stuff out is lying to the troops.
    • jeffn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Umm, wasn't Roosevelt president during the second war?
    • jadedconformist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Let's question why they would want to prevent anybody from accessing information. It's a form a propaganda, if you think about it.
    • SenorPez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12By "Roosevelt" you meant "Wilson," right? Or by "WW1" you meant "WWII," right? Or are history classes really that bad these days?
  • pmr12002, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10This story should be considered inaccurate in that it blow the whole thing way out of proportion. Websites that could be consider a blog are most likely blocked because they are a waste of time. One should be doing there work instead. Same thing happened to people trying to view Conservative leaning sites in the Department of the Interior as noted by this source on http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22975&only.
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Glad someone else mentioned this. First, it's not YOUR computer. It sucks that government agencies, heck anyone, blocks access to sites. But it could be a heck of a lot worse. They could block everything except what they find "work related".

      Anything owned by Nick Denton is a load of ***** anyway. The best thing Ana Marie Cox ever did was sell the Wonkette.com domain to that douchebag.
  • mikesherov, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8In other news: Diggers' use of Anecdotal evidence as proof of a larger trend getting worse.

    See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
  • frankrizzo1, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8@wicherspm
    They're not watching FOX news because they have to, they watch it because they want to.
    • mikekeen, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8Quick everyone digg him down because he disagrees with you. Such hypocrisy coming from the left that it makes me sick.
    • wicherspm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You are correct, and so was vanetto, the TV gets turned on in the morning and tuned to whichever new channel the person likes. Generally everyone starts to work and ignores it for the rest of the day, no one in the waiting room then bothers to change it.
  • mikekeen, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8"A long list of" liberal sites have been blocked but NOT A SINGLE conservative one has. Supporting facts? None.
  • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10This would help explain why 85% of troops over there believe they are in Iraq""to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks".
    • mikekeen, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7What?! Where in the world are you getting your information? I wish people would stop making stuff up.
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7mikekeen,
      http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
      You can't make this ***** up, dude.
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6yes, mikekeen, the words you are looking for are "SORRY I ACCUSED YOU OF MAKING STUFF UP".

      no problem. ;)
    • mikekeen, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3@totorototoro
      This is a poll from February my friend. A biased (and most definitely inaccurate) one at that.
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3mikekeen,
      Thanks for totally owning up to your original accusation. Shows your true colors.
    • steinbeckgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9mikekeen- where the hell have you been? It is not 85% of troops like he says, but recent studies do say 40% of the troops still believe Iraq and 9/11 are connected. If you would do your homework and not watch Fox all the time you would know that, but wait, they don't report real stuff like that because it doesn't fit into the Presidents rosy picture.
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3steinbeckgirl!
      well, it WAS 85% when the Zogby poll was taken, in Feb. 2006, not exactly ancient history :p I was more responding to his hysterical accusation that I made it all up.
  • verifex, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Why do we have a blog reporting on a blog post? Why doesn't the Dailykos guy post it to digg himself?

    I bet the guys blocking the sites are just blocking sites that are getting lots of traffic lately. If a conservative site isn't getting alot of traffic, maybe they haven't blocked it because nobody is visiting it? :)
  • bluto20, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8We gotta "stay the course."
    • SenorPez, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4They've stopped using that phrase.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"They've stopped using that phrase."

      No, they *never* meant "stay the course" when they said "stay the course". Get your spin straight.

      >.>
  • htproto, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@ Rigby
    I don't see very many men in service that think what they do is not for the country. In fact there are a lot of people who have volunteered to go back more than once because they believe in what they do. Just because the liberal media only seems to cover the handful of soldiers that get home and right books against the war doesn't mean that's what the majority think. I have no problem with them expressing themselves and even trying to earn a few bucks. Its not their fault that what they do and say is blown out of proportion.
  • Yage2006, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Thats sick :(
  • SenorPez, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Wow... where's my "Jump to Conclusions" mat for this thread? "Long list." "Most military people are conservatives." "FOX NEWS IS EVERYWHERE!"
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Yes sir I will vote GOP, I just love them Liars Cheats and Child molesters. Oh could you please change the channel on the TV?
    • mikekeen, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I wish there was a Digg.com that morons couldn't find so I wouldn't have to read such dim-witted remarks anymore. The libs will digg this down, of course without actually forming an argument as to why.
    • totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4mikekeen, exactly! Those morons who accuse other diggers of making stuff up and posting it here especially, like the zogby poll I quoted.
  • Equalizer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Flagged as inaccurate.... Wonkette is a liberal hack.... Digg me down bitches
    • fnaqzna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hell... I'm a liberal and I tagged it as inaccurate.

      With a sample size of ONE, Wonkette has decided that the military's blocking of sites is getting worse.
    • Equalizer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Guess I didn't mean you then...
  • there, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3........
    "Every non-conservative politics website has been blocked. They don ’t have a reason to block it but they do, just in time for mid-term elections. Liberal sites are blocked. Conservative site are not"
    ........

    LMAO.

    Neocons are now considered "liberals"??????

    OMG next you're going to tell me Libertarians like Rupert "Foxnews" Murdock didn't support the Iraq war and are not Randroids but are actually communists.

    Holy f~ck the rightwing has entered the territory of the truly bizarre.

    They just can't come to grips that they're to blame for everything. They had congress... they had the presidency.... they had the supreme court....the attorney general... the military... the NSA.

    Conclusion?

    Your ideas don't work!.

    (btw -Digg stories are diffinitely getting rigged by the far right)

    • there, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Ah crap... it said 'non-conservative" not "neo-conservative."

      Bury bury bury. I fricken deserve it to go to Digg hades for that one.

    • BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Least you owned up to your error.

      With behavior like that you wont be a lefty for long.
      And Please on the right wing rigged digg. All this talk about rigging and fraud. yada yada. Remindds me of the ***** in the work place that get their excuses ready before they even attept a task. Pussies nut up, and lets just see where the election falls, save your excuses till after you are defeated

  • Brownds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5*****. I am in the Airforce the TV is on either CNN or Fox or even Opra depends on who turns it on in the morning. And as for Internet you are only authorized use for Official Business on ANY DoD or Government Computer.
  • p0s3r, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Department of Interior has been blocking conservative sites for awhile.
    YouTube will gladly show Al-Queda, underage girls lezzing out, KKK videos, our soldiers getting shot, and the like, but remove conservative videos and ban any account that dares question them.
  • gardnmi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2The fact that people are so paranoid about losing their liberty gives me the comfort in knowing that we won't ever lose our freedoms. We are a government run by the people and can never be controlled for to long by one group of people. We still have all our rights and won't ever lose them. So everyone relax.
  • vvvv, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Oh boohoohoo censorship is so bad. Hey guess what, we tried "freedom" and "democracy" and all it got us was this no-win quagmire in Iraq. I say it's time to give fascism a chance.
  • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3inaccurate. It boils down to heresay. You've got people claiming to be accessing the same sites from MILNET computers and they get Dailykos just fine.

    Bury this Nick Denton spam.
    • wicherspm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The reason some can get to it and others can't is that although we start with a cookie cutter block list, users can request that changes be made, these changes are usually dependent on how the Comm unit commander feels about what should b allowed
  • gardnmi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Look at the submit history of the person who submittted this article and you'll see a trend
    • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Mr. Whitacre is guilty of self promotion.

      You may now flog him.
  • Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This article reeks of *****. Just to give you an idea of why: you arent even allowed to access your yahoo mail account here in the U.S. if you are on a military computer.
    • fatfinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Conwaysb0718
      I email my friend who uses Yahoo who is in IRAQ.
      -ff


    • Krutch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1that goes for any webmail account be it gmail, hotmail, yahoo, etc. They may not be blocked but they are against the AIS security.

      Anyways, I am in the USCG and all and still able to view liberal websites. We also have cnn on the TVs most of the time. I understand I am under a different department of the government but we are still military.

      Would like to also point out that we are only allowed to use the workstations for personal use about 30 minutes of our workday. This may be different in the other branches though.
    • Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was giving an example of how even the most harmless of sites can get lumped into categories they dont belong in. I dont believe for a second that the unit this guy belonged to filters specifically banning "non conservative" sites.
  • Gerbil, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ahhh... Wankette does what wankettes do best.. Buried as bullcrap.
  • tmcdigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1When your in the military, your uncle SaM's female dog!!
    Get used to it, or get out (you know i'm right)


  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5oh well, thats because, er, there's nothing more informative than god's message delivered by Fox... other than that, its alll propaganda...
  • cassholio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1false on its face. Right now I have access to dailykos.com. Sites may be blocked if they are deemed not mission critical, based upon the number of hits that are reported to the web admin. Blogs...not mission critical, so if a lot of people start accessing these websites they get blocked. Hotmail...while stateside not mission critical so of course I don't have access to it. I also don't have access to my master's program email from base - although master's studies are deemed mission critical. Should I whine about the U.S. military boycotting the university system?

    I even forgot the most damning evidence against this article in the first place. I have access to msnbc.com, cnn.com, nytimes.com, latimes.com, and the list goes on...and on...
  • MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4vote you *****!
  • Andy3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Anyway you want to smell it, see it or suspect it........It would not surprise me if this was true.

    You would like to think that our soldiers are fighting, so that there would be no BLACKLIST of websites at all, right? As in, we are a FREE COUNTRY, FREEDOM OF SPEECH and ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

    right!

    • rocksf18jazz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Who in their right mind would go into the military and not expect be only expose to the ideas the military sees fit? This is a non-story. Made up for the KOSites
    • gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Military personnel are citizens, voters and taxpayers, they should have access to all the same information the rest of us do. I always found it a bit contradictory that I was out fighting for, among other things, a free press but had my information censored.
  • RavagesOfTime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm on a .mil domain at work every day. The sites I probably go to more than any others are HuffingtonPost and CrooksandLiars. I'll admit, I've gotten into the CNN/Fox News argument with a few of the older people I work with, but there's no set rule on what's on TV. In fact, some places on this base actually have a schedule set out where certain days of the week, the TVs are on Fox, and the other are on CNN. I avoid showing up on the days with Fox.
  • Volkseddie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The firewalls out there are controlled by whoever has a domain admin code. I have been there twice and it could be any 18 year old jerkoff blocking anything he wants. The generalization the the "US Military" is blocking liberal sites is nonsense. The sites are blocked by content grouping, and like he said most of the blocked liberal sites are personal pages. Internet usage on Govt. Computers is very limited out there, seeing as how it is slow as it is they try to conserve most of the usage for work purposes only. There are places you can go, kida like an "internet cafe" where you can go to have almost completely unrestricted internet access. which is also free mind you. Where I was there is a pizza place, and a subway, a large store where you can buy movies and CDs and game systems.
  • Flashman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4(censored by Pentagon)
  • gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2there was a big dust up not too long ago about the Dept of Interior blocking conserative websites and blogs and NOT liberal ones. For example, little green footballs was blocked and NOT dailykos.

    The reason was, the software was "in process" and black lists were being developed and growing. It's an adaptive system which is imperfect.

    I suspect the same thing is at work here...NOT a vast right-wing conspiracy.
  • Mulo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I work for AFN plus I consider myself to be a liberal. I also can personally vouch that AFN carries news AS IS from all the major news networks including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and yes, FOXnews. As far as the filtering of web sites is concerned( if this story is accurate), the blocking must be occurring at the unit level. Since I work at a DOD facility behind their firewall I also can vouch that I can access every non-conservative site that is linked on DIGG.
  • foxmajik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Maybe you should think next time before you sign a contract.
  • Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1YOU WHAT!?

    1st amendment. no question.

    I will see you in court. the ACLU, the ABA, and assorted others will hear of this nonsense the US Military is forcing.
  • tehmigster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hey, it's another anti-conservative article on digg..
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.