BluegrassReport.org

This Smells Real Bad -- Part III: Insight Backs Down, Will Allow Anti-McConnell Ad To Run

Great news. I've just learned from David Donnelly that Insight Communications has backed down and has "cleared" the anti-McConnell ad produced by Donnelly's group, Public Campaign Action Fund, to run on its stations. This is a big victory.

Now let's hope we can get to the bottom of how/why Insight pulled this factually accurate ad in the first place, particularly since they didn't ask the group for back-up before doing so. Given the close McConnell ties to top Insight executives, let's be sure to keep the pressure on so that we can determine whether or not political loyalties led to blatant censorship. The facts are important.

Here's the ad:

Prominent Right-Wing Group Whacks Governor Fletcher (R)

Remember the ultra-conservative group Judicial Watch, which was founded in 1994 with millions in seed money from the Scaife Foundation and which filed no less than 18 lawsuits against the Clinton Administration and its allies?

Well, here's what they said this morning about Governor Fletcher (R) being awarded a Jefferson Muzzle award thanks to his efforts to block BluegrassReport.org:

Govt. Secrecy, Censorship Disgracefully Awarded

...Indicted Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher was crowned for blocking access to web sites that criticized him and reported his corrupt actions from state-owned computers. Fletcher, a Republican running for reelection, was indicted last year on charges that he illegally rewarded political supporters with protected state jobs. The indictment was dismissed in a deal with prosecutors, but a special grand jury later concluded the governor had approved a widespread and coordinated plan to skirt state hiring laws.

Nice.

Nickolas v. Fletcher Censorship Matter Earns National Award

This morning, The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression issued its 16th annual Jefferson Muzzle awards to call "attention to some of the more egregious or ridiculous affronts to free expression that occurred in the preceding year."

Earning a spot in this year's awards was our own Censor-in-Chief, Governor Fletcher (R) as it highlighted the matter of Nickolas v. Fletcher:

12) The Administration of Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher

"Using state computers to view some of these sites on state time is not an efficient use of state tax dollars or state resources.”

– Jill Midkiff, spokesperson for the Kentucky state agency that oversees state policy on Internet access from state offices.

For selectively blocking the workplace access of Kentucky state employees to certain political blogs and other Internet sites that had posted statements critical of the governor and his administration, a 2007 Jefferson Muzzle goes to… the Administration of Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher.

The administration of Republican Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher had hardly been free of controversy. The Governor had been indicted in May, and faced several criminal charges in a political patronage case when, on June 20, 2006, an article in The New York Times added fuel the flames. The Times story quoted Mark Nikolas, a Kentucky political commentator, to the effect that the Fletcher administration was “peddling ludicrous conspiracy theories” about the administration’s legal problems.

The very next day, the Fletcher administration began blocking access to Internet blogs on state-owned computers by Kentucky state employees. Among the websites blocked was BluegrassReport.org, a political website maintained by Nikolas and described by him as “An Unfiltered and Candid Look at Politics, Politicians and the Media in Kentucky.” Although this action was initially justified as a comprehensive exclusion of all blogs – in contrast to more traditional news media – it soon became clear that Kentucky state workers remained free to access such sites as the Drudge Report and the Internet home pages of other conservative sources such as Rush Limbaugh and the Republican National Committee. When an alternative channel was created by which one might access BluegrassReport.org, that pathway was immediately blocked as well.

The Governor’s stated rationale for this action—to “limit the use of state computers to work-related topics” — would not seem to justify selective or differential access to Internet sources or materials. An official statement from Kentucky’s Finance and Administrative Cabinet (the agency responsible for determining how state-owned computers may be used) conceded that filtering of web sites “is not a perfect science.” The designer of the filtering software was specifically asked to “categorize sites that were not initially identified.” Yet, state officials have not adequately explain why some websites are classified as “blogs” and subject to blocking while others are not. Indeed, the word “blog” does not appear anywhere on BluegrassReport.org. Soon after the blocking policy was announced, Mark Nikolas filed suit against the Governor in U.S. District Court, claiming that the selective denial of access to his and other uncongenial websites and blogs violated the First Amendment freedoms of the blocked bloggers, as well as those of Kentucky’s public workforce. On March 30, 2007, the court refused to dismiss the case and the matter is now pending.

Although state government may take appropriate steps to ensure that its employees complete the tasks that have been assigned to them, as well as protecting both the hardware and software that comprise the state’s computer network, Kentucky’s selective ban on workplace access to some unfriendly blogs and websites, while maintaining access to those with more congenial views, clearly infringes freedom of expression and warrants a 2007 Jefferson Muzzle.

Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Kentucky Bloggers Lawsuit (AP)

We cleared the first hurdle before being able to put the real damaging evidence before the judge, as she ruled before we had time. Nevertheless, this is a very encouraging and important first step. Consider that U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell said the case had merit even after the Fletcher administration's disingenuous argument that BluegrassReport.org was not singled out.

Of course, that was before last week's blockbuster public admission by Mike Inman, who was in charge of the administration's Commonwealth Office of Technology at the time of the ban, who now acknowledges that BGR was in fact specifically targeted.

Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Kentucky Bloggers Lawsuit
Associated Press

FRANKFORT, Ky. A federal judge refused to dismiss a free-speech lawsuit filed by a political commentator against Gov. Ernie Fletcher.

U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell on Friday referred the case filed by Internet blogger Mark Nickolas to a federal magistrate to manage the exchange of evidence in the case and to conduct a settlement conference “as he deems appropriate.”

Recall what Inman told Ryan Alessi last week:

Inman also said the culture of state government demanded loyalty above nearly all else. Inman said the distaste for criticism even led high-ranking officials to move to specifically block the blog bluegrassreport.org.

...A similar attitude led to the administration shutting out external critics, such as the political blog bluegrassreport.org, run by Democratic operative Mark Nickolas, Inman said.

Last summer, the administration blocked state workers from viewing that blog and others, prompting Nickolas to file a federal lawsuit.

Inman said he first heard about the move when Rutledge bragged to him, "Well, we finally blocked bluegrassreport.org."

"He said, 'It's perfectly legal.' He got defensive about it, and said, 'Well they wouldn't ever know we did it because we hid it in a bunch of other stuff,'" Inman recalled Rutledge saying. "I said, 'There will be a lawsuit about this.'"

So much for all the predictions by Fletcher-loyalists that the case would be dismissed...

Alessi: Fletcher Administration Says "We Finally Blocked BluegrassReport.org" -- While They Spied On State Employees' E-Mails To See If They Were Being 'Loyal'

Well, I woke up to this surprise (and helpful) story in this morning's Herald-Leader just as U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell is still deciding our motion for preliminary injunction:

(and be sure to read the entire story about how Fletcher's goons were reading state employees' e-mails to see if they were being loyal and then forward this to every state worker you know!)

(Also recall this post from August 2006 regarding Inman's very quiet departure when he was allegedly pushed out, soon after we filed our federal lawsuit...)

Inman says e-mails were reviewed
FLETCHER'S EX-COMMISSIONER OF TECHNOLOGY SPEAKS OUT
By Ryan Alessi, Herald-Leader

FRANKFORT -- While Gov. Ernie Fletcher is portrayed as a victim in his campaign ad, a former official said the administration did its own bullying by reviewing employees' e-mails, encouraging workers not to cooperate with a grand jury and by silencing critics.

Michael Inman, the former commissioner of the Commonwealth Office of Technology, told the Herald-Leader in an interview that he witnessed -- as well as heard his then-deputy, Mark Rutledge, brag about --at least one cabinet secretary calling to review certain employees' e-mail accounts to check on their loyalties.

[...]

Inman also said the culture of state government demanded loyalty above nearly all else. Inman said the distaste for criticism even led high-ranking officials to move to specifically block the blog bluegrassreport.org.

[...]

A similar attitude led to the administration shutting out external critics, such as the political blog bluegrassreport.org, run by Democratic operative Mark Nickolas, Inman said.

Last summer, the administration blocked state workers from viewing that blog and others, prompting Nickolas to file a federal lawsuit.

Inman said he first heard about the move when Rutledge bragged to him, "Well, we finally blocked bluegrassreport.org."

"He said, 'It's perfectly legal.' He got defensive about it, and said, 'Well they wouldn't ever know we did it because we hid it in a bunch of other stuff,'" Inman recalled Rutledge saying. "I said, 'There will be a lawsuit about this.'"

Inman said he later told Farris about his concern about a lawsuit.

"We'll probably win because you can do this, but I will tell you what you're doing is wrong politically and will hurt the governor," Inman said he told Farris.

"That's fact, and I'll raise my hand and swear to that under oath," Inman said

By the way, I've never met Inman and no one on my behalf has ever spoken to him. This story came as a total surprise to me but he was the guy who ran COT at the time of the blog ban...

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid of this behavior.

Judge Holds Hearing On Blogger's Lawsuit

Just got back from our morning hearing before U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell on my lawsuit against the Fletcher administration. I was very proud of my talented legal team for their work. I won't venture to guess how Judge Caldwell will rule on our motion but she seemed very educated on both sides' arguments and was very engaged during oral arguments.

Noteworthy was that Governor Fletcher's Chief of Staff, Stan Cave, attended the hearing, as did Jack Brammer of the Herald-Leader, Tom Loftus of the Courier-Journal and Tony McVeigh of Kentucky Public Radio.

Brammer already has a story up on Pol Watchers. Here's an excerpt:

A federal judge today held a hearing on a lawsuit that claims Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s administration unconstitutionally blocked state workers’ access to a political blog because it was critical of the governor.

U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell did not immediately rule on a motion by Mark Nickolas to issue a preliminary injunction against the administration or the administration’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

With Fletcher’s Chief of Staff Stan Cave present in the court room, Caldwell asked attorneys for Nickolas and the administration their thoughts on a possible jury trial.

Greg Beck, an attorney for Nickolas with the Washington, D.C.-based Public Citizen, said it’s an important case and that “decision-makers” probably should be questioned about its policy of blocking political blogs while permitting the use of traditional news sites.

[...]

The Fletcher administration contends that it was not targeting Nickolas’ blog, but had formulated a policy to add to a list of sites banned on state employees' computers, including gambling and pornographic sites.

Nickolas maintains the state’s blocking of his site constitutes content-based discrimination.

First Amendment

I wanted to update you on two things.

First, I received a letter this week informing me that I have been nominated for the prestigious 2007 PEN/Newman's Own First Amendment Award for "resisting censorship" with BluegrassReport.org.

The PEN American Center is a long-established organization based in New York City and made-up of a few thousand distinguished writers and editors to advance literature and defend free expression.The award itself will be decided by a panel of five judges which in previous years has included people such as Caroline Kennedy, Stanley Crouch, Pat Schroeder, Armistead Maupin, and Morley Safer (among many others) and carries a cash prize of $20,000.

The letter says that the award "honors an individual who has fought courageously, against adversity, to safeguard the First Amendment right to freedom of expression as it applies to the written word."

Anyway, I think it's pretty cool just to be nominated and judged by this organization. Wish me luck.

Secondly -- and fittingly (considering the above) -- U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell will be hearing arguments in the matter of Nickolas v. Fletcher on Friday at 9:00 am at the federal courthouse in Frankfort and I'm excited that we'll have a chance to argue our case. Louisville's Jennifer Moore and Public Citizen's Greg Beck will be arguing the matter on my behalf. It feels good to demand accountability for the actions of the Fletcher Administration. Wish me luck on that as well.

P.S. - This is precisely why I need your help to keep BGR going, as mentioned in the post below.  I've received 11 contributions in just the past few hours. Thank you so much.

Senator McConnell (R) Hires Blogger For His Official Senate Leadership Operation

Looks like Senator McConnell (R) has learned the value of the political blogs and has hired the blogger who worked for Senator George Allen's (R-VA) losing campaign (Jon Henke) for his official war room.

From Henke's website yesterday:

January 1st, 2007 seems like a good day to announce a significant change in my life: I have accepted a position as the New Media Director for the Republican Communications Office in the Senate. Starting on January 3rd, I'll be working for the Republican Leader (Senator McConnell) coordinating New Media engagement for the Senate Republicans.

I'm very excited about this position for a variety of reasons; because of the opportunity it gives me, because of the importance of an effective opposition, and because of the positive signal it sends that Republicans are taking New Media engagement seriously.

That's important, because the Republicans are getting into the game a bit late. Echoing a point I've made before about blogs and campaigns, Craig Shirley points out the importance of the new media...

"The Internet, e-mail, blogs, and websites are to organizational politics what the telephone was starting in the 1940s or what direct mail was starting in the 1960s," said Craig Shirley, an author and political consultant who worked on Reagan's presidential campaigns.

He's right about the emergence of a new political battlefield, but the New Media is much more than simply a means of voter communication. Hopefully, engagement from politicians and interest groups will serve to improve the blogosphere, by giving us better access to more information, more quickly and with more context. I've been fascinated by the emergence of the New Media, happy to have been a participant in it, and thrilled to be able to develop it further...

Isn't it telling that while indicted Governor Fletcher (R) uses government censorship to ban political blogs (mine in particular), Senator McConnell is embracing them as part of his official Senate operation?

By the way, U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell will hear arguments in my federal lawsuit against the Fletcher administration next Friday, January 12, 2007 at 9:30 am in Frankfort regarding our Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Ruling Limits Internet Liability

A very strong ruling by the California Supreme Court yesterday:

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that bloggers and participants in Internet bulletin board groups cannot be sued for posting defamatory statements made by others.

In deciding a case closely watched by free speech groups, the court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits not only to Internet service providers, like AOL, but also to bloggers and other users of their services.

"Subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech," today's unanimous ruling said.

As Kos concludes:

the court wasn't just protecting the writings of others (such as diarists on Daily Kos), but also of site admins to post someone else's defamatory content. That's some spectacularly rock-solid legal protection.

Nickolas vs. Fletcher UPDATE

I've received a few questions lately about the status of my 1st Amendment federal lawsuit against Governor Fletcher and his administration.

Well, we learned last week that U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell has a set a hearing date for our Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It will be heard on Thursday, December 14, 2006 at 1:30 pm in Frankfort.

Ruling: Judicial Candidates Can't Say How They Would Rule (Alford, AP)

U.S. District Court Judge Karen Caldwell is now 2 for 2 on free speech cases in the past month with this surprising ruling this afternoon.

Ruling: Judicial Candidates Can't Say How They Would Rule
ROGER ALFORD, Associated Press

FRANKFORT, Ky. - Judicial candidates in Kentucky can tell voters which political party they belong to and can even personally solicit contributions from attorneys who might later argue cases before them, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

However, U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell said judicial candidates in the state can't promise how they will rule on particular issues, including hot button topics like abortion or public postings of the Ten Commandments.

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Marcus Carey, a northern Kentucky lawyer running for the 6th District seat on the Kentucky Supreme Court in the November election against Court of Appeals Judge Wil Schroder.

[...]

In her ruling, Caldwell also granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the Judicial Conduct Commission and the Kentucky Bar Association from enforcing rules that forbid candidates from announcing their political affiliation or personally seeking campaign contributions from attorneys.

Caldwell said Carey has established a "strong likelihood" that he will win on those two issues as the lawsuit progresses.

Last month, Caldwell ruled that the newly-passed state law that banned protests at military funerals on free-speech grounds was too restrictive and suspended its application.

Next up for Caldwell is Nickolas v. Fletcher...

U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell suspended the newly-passed state law that banned protests at military funerals on free-speech grounds, saying that the law was too restrictive.

While the case is certainly very controversial, an interesting side-note is that Judge Caldwell presently has at least three significant free speech cases sitting before her court: this one, the one filed by Supreme Court candidate Marcus Carey, and my lawsuit against Governor Fletcher and his administration.

Judge Halts Law Aimed At Stopping Military Funeral Protests
BRETT BARROUQUERE
Associated Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A federal judge has temporarily suspended Kentucky's law forbidding protests within 300 feet of military funerals and memorial services.

U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell said Tuesday that the law goes too far in limiting free speech. The law aimed at Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., which is known for its anti-gay protests, is too broad, the judge said in issuing an injunction.

"The zone is large enough that it would restrict communications intended for the general public on a matter completely unrelated to the funeral as well as messages targeted at funeral participants," Caldwell wrote in a 37-page ruling issued in Frankfort.

Earlier this year, the Kentucky General Assembly passed the law prohibiting nearly all protests near military funerals.

[...]

Caldwell said the buffer zone would stop more than just protesters from speaking - it could restrict free speech rights in homes and on sidewalks and streets.

"It prohibits such activity whether the persons involved in the activities are visible to funeral participants or not and whether they are making any sound that funeral participants can hear or not," Caldwell wrote.

The law, which also applies to memorial services, wakes and burials, was aimed at members of Westboro Baptist Church who have toured the country protesting at military funerals. The church members claim the soldiers' deaths are a sign of God punishing America for tolerating homosexuality.

[...]

The federal government and more than half of the states, including Missouri, have enacted laws restricting funeral picketing. Laws in Missouri and Ohio are being challenged in federal court by Westboro Baptist, the ACLU or both. The Rev. Fred Phelps, who heads the church, and the church have been sued in Maryland and Missouri by family members of dead soldiers.

As an update, we're presently awaiting a hearing date on our Motion for Preliminary Injunction in my case.

UPDATE: Mark Nickolas v. Governor Ernie Fletcher, et al.

Recently, a number of readers have asked me for an update on the federal 1st Amendment lawsuit that I filed against indicted Governor Fletcher (R), Secretary Robbie Rudolph and Finance Secretary John Farris last month.

First of all, now that the matter has been moved from the political arena to a legal forum, I've been careful to respect the process and not simultaneously politicize it here on BluegrassReport.org. The action was filed fully to get the Fletcher administration to back-off their unconstitutional efforts to restrict my protected political speech, not as a publicity stunt, and we are very determined to win this matter in federal court.

However, there is a significant development in the case and one that I wanted to be sure you knew about.

Yesterday, my legal team filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. As I understand it, it's a request to the judge that the case has so much merit and a likelihood that we will eventually prevail that the Fletcher administration should immediately unblock BluegrassReport.org while the matter is being litigated.

(click here for the 41-page legal brief and the 53 pages of exhibits. You can also read the original complaint here).

I thought my legal team (Louisville's Jennifer Moore, along with Greg Beck and his team at Public Citizen in Washington, DC) did an incredible job with the brief.

From a pure interest and evolution of media standpoint, I really encourage you to read section two (pages 11-18) which lays out the state's "illegitimate distinction between news-related websites it classifies as 'blogs' and mainstream newspaper and magazine websites." While that's just one of several crucial arguments in this case, it's also the one that is getting a great deal of national attention as the establishment comes to grips with the burgeoning presence of blogs on the political scene.

I think you'll enjoy reading it, as well as the rest of the brief. We've asked for a hearing date and I'll update you on that when it's been assigned.

Anyway, just wanted to update you on developments in the case before the mainstream media caught wind of it.

P.S. -- I'm going to embark on another of my dreaded Pledge Drives shortly, now that I have monthly legal bills to pay and having to consider a technological upgrade and re-design of BGR to a standalone platform -- and off Typepad -- as it appears that we've outgrown TypePad's ability to host our site with consistency (though I acknowledge this a good problem -- but a fairly expensive one) -- not to mention just keeping the lights on as your contributions and the site's ad revenue are my sole source of support.

So, as a pre-pledge drive appeal, I'd be grateful for your continued support (please the donate button in upper-left margin). Things are getting busier and busier as we head toward the November election and I need your help now more than ever. Also, it seems we'll reach the 1,000,000 visitor milestone next month which is an incredible feat for a state site that only launched 14 months ago!

Political Blogger Has Experience In The Trenches (Biesk, AP)

Associated Press did a nice profile piece on me that runs this morning.

Political Blogger Has Experience In The Trenches
Joe Biesk
Associated Press

PARIS, Ky. - Working on the 2000 presidential recount, Democratic strategist Mark Nickolas learned the influence a single person could have on government. As a blogger, Nickolas is applying that lesson to Kentucky's political scene.

Nickolas, working from a one-person home office in a 1790s-era house perched atop a sprawling horse farm, has taken on a who's who of Kentucky politics - ranging from indicted Gov. Ernie Fletcher to his own party leaders. Despite a state government block on his Web site, Nickolas says he's not backing down.

"One person can do a lot," Nickolas said. "You don't need a million people and a million dollars. You need hard work and courage."

Nickolas, U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler's former campaign manager is involved in a legal battle with Fletcher's administration over access to his political blog, http://www.BluegrassReport.org. His site was blocked on state employees' computers a day after Nickolas was quoted in the New York Times in a story about the governor.

Fletcher administration officials have claimed they did not target his site. Instead, officials have said, the site was blocked along with numerous others to prevent inappropriate employee access.

An advocacy group filed a federal lawsuit on Nickolas' behalf earlier this month. In the suit, the Washington-Based Public Citizen claimed Nickolas' site was singled out - a move they claim was a violation of his constitutional rights.

"It's hard to get past the fact that I was banned the morning after a front page New York Times story critical of (Fletcher) where BluegrassReport is mentioned specifically," Nickolas said. "There's no getting past that smell test, and I think that is why we're in the fight that we're in."

Fletcher said the administration won't relent on its policy, which was intended to make state employees more efficient.

"It has nothing to do with the First Amendment," Fletcher said.

(click here to keep reading story)

Government Lifts Ban On Blogs!!!! Seriously...

...in India.

It seems that the Fletcher Administration's censorship policies are much, much closer to China's than India's:

Government Lifts Ban On Websites
CNN-IBN
Posted Thursday , July 20, 2006 at 12:59

New Delhi: Bloggers in India can rest easy now.

According to the Department of Telecommunications, blogs which were blacked out three days after the Mumbai blasts will soon be restored.

Post 7/11, the Government decided to block sites without saying why and the ISPs decided to go ahead, do one better and block all blogs.

The Centre issued an order to block 22 websites after a two-page write up containing derogatory references to Islam appeared in a blog.

The Department of Telecommunciations had issued notices to all Internet service providers (ISPs) to block the two pages, but due to a technical error, ISPs blocked all blogs.

Various ISPs say they were asked to block access to a list of 20 odd websites, which these include sites like Dalitstan.org, Clickatell.com, Hinduunity.com, Princesskimberly.blogspot.com and Hinduhumanrights.org - all sites that supposedly spread extreme views.

The Department of Telecommunciations has now clarified that the error is being rectified.

The Government alleges that these blogsites were fuelling hatred and communalism, but it also clarified its stand saying that they were not trying to censor free speech in the country. Instead they insisted that these sites have been under security check much before the terrorist attacks.

How sad that a country like India, which just experienced a serious terrorist attack, and sits continually on the precipice of war with Pakistan, only blocked government workers' access to a small number of blogs for just three days and then remarked "they were not trying to censor free speech."

Makes Fletcher's move to censor so much more pathetic in contrast.

Keeling On Fletcher's Censorship

Larry Dale Keeling has this item in his Sunday column:

The Fletcher administration could have avoided the flap over state workers' access to blogs in two ways.

Block access to all blogs.

Don't block access to any of them.

Instead, Fletcherites decided to get selective, created a national to-do, wound up looking bad and now will blow more tax dollars on legal fees defending themselves against a suit.

All because they once again rushed right past the smart options in their haste to embrace the dumb one.

Hard to disagree with that assessment.

GOP Gubernatorial Fundraiser Nets $0 With Ann Coulter As Special Guest

Now this is too funny. A Colorado website called "Colorado Confidential" has a story about a recent fundraising reception that conservative nut-job Ann Coulter hosted for a Republican gubernatorial candidate.

They raised $0.00. No one showed up. Even Colorado Republicans aren't interested in Coulter's obscenely caustic brand of politics.

Of course, state employees can access www.AnnCoulter.com if they'd like to learn more about her recent assertion that 9/11 widows were nothing but "self-obsessed" celebrity-seeking "broads" who are "enjoying" their husbands' deaths.

Class act. You can thank the Fletcher Administration for keeping that available for state workers.

UPDATE: While Coulter loved to rail against George Soros for using his money to trying to elect Democratic candidates, not a peep from her about this development today. Shameless hypocrite.

How Soon We Forget

Three years, a controversy erupted within the Bush Administration's Department of Labor over some government censorship. At the time, the agency blocked an employee newsletter that was prepared by the employees' union and distributed through the agency's interoffice mail. The newsletter was blocked because it contained an article and cartoon criticizing President Bush. The union filed a complaint over the incident, asking for a hearing.

Funny, but at the time, the Courier-Journal editorial board -- led by David Hawpe -- was critical of such government censorship, arguing:

Speech Control
April 22, 2003
Courier-Journal editorial

NOW there's proof that U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell does not engage in coercive pillow talk. He's the nation's preeminent critic of government interference with free speech, but his wife, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, runs an agency that censors its own employees.

The Labor Department has barred the union that represents its workers from distributing a newsletter through interoffice mail. And why? Because it contained an article and cartoon criticizing the Bush White House on taxes and job-privatization.

Ms. Chao says the union should be able to say what it wants, but not with the help of interoffice mail delivery.

Nobody in America has condemned government interference with free speech more vehemently, or sanctimoniously, than her husband. Sen. McConnell snarled, with reference to the passage of McCain-Feingold election reform, ``Thanks to Common Cause and their merry band of `reformers,' before you exercise your First Amendment freedoms, you had better hire a lawyer.'' But that's what the government workers' union will have to do to settle the newsletter dispute.

You shouldn't have to arbitrate speech, just because a bunch of Labor Department bureaucrats don't like seeing George W. Bush depicted - accurately - as a perverse Santa Claus, who gives federal employees a bag of switches for Christmas while stuffing massive tax-cut proceeds into the silk stockings of the rich.

Of course, two days ago, Hawpe fired his arrogant missive that the Fletcher administration's selective censorship of political speech was not government censorship (of course, his website was not blocked) arguing:

Then there's the local blogger who, just this week, filed suit against the Fletcher administration, claiming his first Amendment right to have his political views appear on the state government employee computer system has been violated. But free speech applies to public forums, and who says that's what the state employee computer system is?

In the world according to Hawpe, if a union uses government's interoffice mail (i.e., taxpayer resources) to distribute a newsletter to employees which the government censors over content, that's a free speech violation. But if the Fletcher administration blocks political speech on the internet which occurs a day after a front-page New York Times article critical of the administration, well, tough. No public forum exists. No violation.

Hawpe fails, surprisingly or conveniently, to understand the constitutional issue here, but one would hope that he'd at last be sure to be consistent about his own standard for what ruffles his feathers regarding government censorship of political speech. Fortunately, Hawpe appears to be in the minority here.

Just a little editorial hypocrisy for your breakfast.

(You can read the Courier-Journal's archived story on the incident on the jump page below)

KY Lawmaker Moves To Prevent 'Politically Motivated Censorship'

In case you thought the controversy of government-sponsored censorship of political speech was dying down, you'd be wrong.

Today, Rep. Kathy Stein (D), State Treasurer Jonathan Miller (D) and David Sirota, co-chair of the non-partisan, non-profit Progressive States Network, joined forces to push legislation aimed at curtailing the recent unconstitutional actions of the Fletcher administration.

Here's a sampling of the afternoon's stories of their press conference:

Herald-Leader:

Legislator Proposes Bill To Prevent 'Politically Motivated Censorship'
By Jack Brammer
HERALD-LEADER FRANKFORT BUREAU

FRANKFORT - Three days after a Kentucky political blogger sued Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration for blocking state workers' access to his Web site, state Rep. Kathy Stein said today she is drafting legislation to prevent what she said was "politically motivated censorship."

Stein, at a news conference in the Capitol Annex, said her bill still would allow government to ban workers' access to pornographic or gambling Web sites, but would make sure news and commentary sites would be handled in a "viewpoint-neutral way."

"This common-sense bill respects workers and taxpayers and it prevents politically motivated censorship," said Stein, D-Lexington.

Joining Stein to support the legislation were Treasurer Jonathan Miller and David Sirota, co-chair of the non-partisan, non-profit Progressive States Network based in Washington, D.C.

[...]

Blogs on mainstream media Web sites, as well as prominent conservative blogs, such as the Drudge Report, remain accessible.

Sirota said Fletcher's action is troubling.

"What's next on a slippery slope like this? Books he doesn't like?"

Nickolas, who attended today's news conference but did not participate in it, said he supports the intent of Stein's legislation.

"State workers should do their work but shouldn't be beholden to the political views of their employer," he said.

Stein said she hopes to have her legislation finalized in a few weeks. It would be considered in the 2007 General Assembly, which begins in January.

Fletcher's office referred questions about Stein's legislation to the Finance and Administration Cabinet, which oversees state computers.

Jill Midkiff, a cabinet spokeswoman, said, "We cannot comment on a concept."

Courier-Journal:

State Lawmaker Wants Bloggers Protected
By Elisabeth J. Beardsley
ebeardsley@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

FRANKFORT, Ky. — Democratic state Rep. Kathy Stein of Lexington said Thursday she plans to file legislation to prohibit state government from banning state workers’ access to Web sites on the basis of a site’s viewpoint.

...Administration officials have said the intent was to prevent employees from wasting time and that no specific sites were targeted.

But Stein said some conservative Web sites remained available, while those critical of Republicans were blocked.

“If you can listen to G. Gordon Liddy in the workplace but not NPR, there’s something wrong,” Stein said. “You’ve lost your credibility.”

Stein said the proposed legislation would allow state government to bar worker access to some materials, but that it has to be done in a neutral manner. Individual agencies would decide what to allow or ban, she said. Some may need access, for instance, to eBay while others do not, she said.

Sites with “no legitimate purpose,” such as pornography or gambling, have been and would continue to be off-limits under her bill, Stein said.

Stein said she would propose “reasonable criteria” for Internet access, including allowing employees to surf the web during lunch and break times.

[...]

Blogger Mark Nickolas, whose Web site BluegrassReport.org was blocked, has filed a federal lawsuit claiming he was discriminated against due to his criticism of Fletcher.

Finance Cabinet spokeswoman Jill Midkiff said no individual sites were targeted or banned, but rather categories of sites such as blogs, entertainment, humor, online auctions and shopping. The software was imperfect and has been updated to ban new sites or unblock legitimate ones, she said.

[...]

Nickolas, who attended the press conference, said afterward that blocking Web sites “is antithetical to democracy.”

He said he agrees state workers should be doing state work when on state time, but government should not be banning political speech.

By the way, I find it incredible that after banning BluegrassReport.com within 24 hours of it going up, that they continue with this nonsense:

Finance Cabinet spokeswoman Jill Midkiff said no individual sites were targeted or banned.

More On Hawpe

A member of the state's press corps e-mailed me the following regarding David Hawpe's comments of yesterday:

I read Hawpe's column in the C-J this morning and then your blog. Speaking privately, I wouldn't get too steamed if I were you, or rant at the arrogant mainstream media. I think it's a generational thing, not an MSM thing. With all due respect to Hawpe and some of my older colleagues, they don't quite get the Internet. But a few of them do, and most of us young punks do. Our attitude on blogs is ... The more, the merrier! The more people you folks get interested in current affairs, the better for reporters like me. And if I'm entitled to First Amendment protection, so is everyone else.

More Arrogance From The Entrenched Mainstream Media

This morning's editorial column by the Courier-Journal's David Hawpe revealed yet another stunning example of the arrogance of the established mainstream media when it comes to defending what it believes is its turf and no one else's:

Then there's the local blogger who, just this week, filed suit against the Fletcher administration, claiming his first Amendment right to have his political views appear on the state government employee computer system has been violated. But free speech applies to public forums, and who says that's what the state employee computer system is?

This fellow has a First Amendment right to blog, but not to have his blog available wherever he wants it. Since when does any publisher of information -- newspaper, magazine, broadcast outlet, Internet site or whatever -- have a First Amendment right to be heard inside a government office?

That's akin to saying that if GOP veteran Larry Forgy visits the Governor to talk about politics, Fletcher also is bound by the Constitution to have David Hawpe in to do the same. It's akin to suggesting that if the Governor's office subscribes to The Wall Street Journal so he can read that editorial page, it's legally obliged to buy ours to read as well.

Hawpe shows his mainstream media bias here in a dramatically disingenuous way. His haughty assessment seems to overlook a simple but fundamental constitutional premise. There is a Grand Canyon of different between government itself voluntarily doing some voluntary inclusive act (like meeting with person or buying a newspaper subscription) versus the selective and arbitrary blocking of core constitutional speech that the 1st Amendment protects.

Not a huge surprise that Hawpe -- whose own C-J was not blocked by state government -- seems to show such transparent disdain for the non-traditional media which continues to eat into the monopoly of news and information that the mainstream media once exercised. It's that same arrogance and refusal (or paralysis) to adjust to the marketplace that has caused its profit margins to plummet,forcing it to close bureaus and thus limiting statewide news coverage, while grossly overworking its talented political reporters like Tom Loftus and Elisabeth Beardsley.

No surprise for Hawpe's convenient misguided legal analysis here.

UPDATE: LawReader just put out this comment on Hawpe's remarks:

LAWREADER COMMENT ON HAWPE ARTICLE
   
LAWREADER EDITORIAL COMMENT: David Hawpe appears to minimize the harm done by the blog blocking efforts of the Fletcher Aministration.  We believe he misses the real issue.  It's not can the State limit use of their computer network, the question is can the State censor sites that provide virtually identical type information to one site and allow access to another.

This is arbitrary censorship.  The state continues to allow state workers to access the Courier Journal (i.e. Hawpe's column) but blocks selected sites that are critical of the Administration.  We believe that if the state blocks anyone, it should block everyone in that category, otherwise, the state becomes a censor.  The lawsuit filed by Mark Nickolas points out that distinction.  An employer can limit access to its network, that is not the issue. Further, we see an important distinction between a private employer, and the State of Kentucky. All taxpayers pay for the state network, and only the private employer pays for a private network.

***NICKOLAS VS. FLETCHER FILED*** Federal 1st Amendment & Equal Protection Clause Lawsuit Filed Against Governor Fletcher, Secretary Rudolph, and Secretary Farris Regarding Censorship Of Political Speech

This afternoon, a federal lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky entitled Mark Nickolas v. Governor Ernie Fletcher, Secretary John Farris and Secretary Robbie Rudolph over the recent targeting and censorship of BluegrassReport.org. (click here to see verified complaint). The suit alleges that the administration's actions are an infringement of rights under the 1st Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. (for background click here)

Louisville attorney Jennifer Moore and the Washington, DC litigation group of Public Citizen (led by attorney Greg Beck) are representing me in this litigation. The complaint asks that the government's ban of BluegrassReport.org be declared unconstitutional and access be restored. No monetary damages are sought.

Click here for the press release which Public Citizen has just put out.

The complaint focuses on two separate issues:
 
First, the Fletcher Administration targeted my political speech by specifically banning BluegrassReport.org because I have been critical of this corrupt administration, and not so coincidentally did so the morning after a front-page New York Times story very critical of Fletcher where I was quoted and this site mentioned. Only after the fact have they scrambled to block other sites, albeit haphazardly.
 
The second issue, however, has significant national implications as it involves the unconstitutional efforts by government to discriminate against non-traditional media, like the blogs. In this case, the mainstream newspapers’ websites were not blocked, but non-traditional media like mine were. They did so with no standards or policy guidelines in place and implemented in a non-sensical and arbitrary manner.
 
This is fertile constitutional ground since the blogosphere is such a recent phenomenon, but the courts have already begun according blogs with media protections (as has the FEC) and historically are quite sensitive to targeting of non-traditional media, often comparing them to the early American pamphleteers.

One last thing. I'll need your help in coming days and weeks to ensure that we have the resources to fully fund this legal effort! Please contribute below if you can.

UPDATE (4:30pm): Already getting some national attention as Political Wire and Daily Kos have just posted.

UPDATE #2 (6:15 pm): TPMmuckraker continues its excellent coverage of this matter.

UPDATE #3 (6:30 pm): We've learned that federal Judge Karen Caldwell has been assigned this case. This should be quite a fight.

UPDATE #4 (7:25 pm): AP has a story:

Washington Group Files Suit On Behalf On Political Commentator
ROGER ALFORD
Associated Press

FRANKFORT, Ky. - A federal judge will decide whether state officials violated the constitutional rights of a political commentator by blocking access to his Web site on government computers.

The Washington-based advocacy group Public Citizen claims in a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Lexington that the state singled out the Web site of Mark Nickolas, http://www.BluegrassReport.org.

The lawsuit names Gov. Ernie Fletcher and two of his top administrators as defendants.

[...]

"The state has not consistently enforced its ban and has not yet given a coherent reason why blogs devoted to news and politics should be treated any differently than traditional news sites," said Greg Beck, the attorney who filed the lawsuit.

The Fletcher administration declined comment on the lawsuit Monday evening. "We've not even seen the lawsuit yet," spokeswoman Jill Midkiff said. "We can't comment until we've had the opportunity to review it."

Midkiff previously said the state blocked numerous Web sites to boost employees' efficiency. State officials were not targeting particular sites, she said.

However, Beck said the circumstances of the case suggests that the state intentionally targeted Nicholas, because it occurred immediately after Nicholas was quoted in a New York Times article being critical of Fletcher.

In the lawsuit, he contends the state infringed on Nicholas' rights under both the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

"The state's blocking of BluegrassReport.org constitutes content-based discrimination," said Louisville attorney Jennifer A. Moore. "While the state may regulate what its employees do during work hours, it cannot selectively control the reading material of employees based on content. The state also cannot discriminate based on traditional and nontraditional media sites."

UPDATE #5 (7:35 pm): Elisabeth Beardsley weights in with a story on the Courier-Journal website:

Blogger Sues Fletcher Over Web Policy
By Elisabeth Beardsley
ebeardsley@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

Blogger Mark Nickolas, who runs BluegrassReport.org, has sued Gov. Ernie Fletcher and other administration officials for barring access to his Web site from state workers’ computers.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Frankfort, alleges that the state’s action violated the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

[...]

Nickolas, a frequent Fletcher critic, claims the administration targeted his Web site based on his political speech, said his lawyer Jennifer Moore.

He is also arguing that the administration illegally discriminates based on content, since state workers can still access newspaper and TV station Web sites.

The suit asks for the blog to be un-blocked and for attorney fees, but no monetary damages, Moore said.

Finance Cabinet spokeswoman Jill Midkiff said the agency had not yet received the lawsuit and could not comment.

UPDATE #6 (8:00 pm): Kentucky Law Blog -- a terrific online publication -- posted about the lawsuit this afternoon:

This just in. 

Mark Nickolas tells governor he'll see him in court over censorship of blogs.  Actually, suit was filed in federal court over the censorship mess. Jennifer Moore and attorneys with Public Citizen are representing Mr. Nickolas in this First Amendment case.  Jennifer is an outstanding attorney with a firm known for quality legal work. Therefore, this is not a posturing suit but a legitimate legal action seeking a restraining order against the governor's actions.

Although one initially might think it a legitimate government interest to keep government employees on the government payroll spending their government time on government business, this is not how the blog filtering worked or was implemented.  Reports from Frankfort and others reveal that some blogs were blocked, others were not, some were then they were not, and a distinction was made between various publications (be they blogs or the on-line equivalents of main stream media (newspapers). 

...This appears to be another fine mess that Ernie has gotten himself in as he plays a political version of cowpie bingo.   

Yesterday it was censoring political opinions, today it was flying a trial balloon on changing the law to allow gubernatorial appointments of the attorney general and state treasurer.  With all that is going on, someone at the state's power center needs to follow this sage advice - it's best to remain silent and let them think you are the fool, rather than open your mouth and speak and thus remove all doubt.

UPDATE #7 (8:40 pm): Jack Brammer has just filed a story with the Herald-Leader:

Blogger Sues To Restore Ky. State Workers' Access
By Jack Brammer
HERALD-LEADER FRANKFORT BUREAU

FRANKFORT - Gov. Ernie Fletcher's administration cannot block state workers' access to political blogs while permitting the use of traditional news sites, said a federal lawsuit filed today by a national, non-profit consumer advocacy organization.

Public Citizen, based in Washington, D.C., filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Frankfort on behalf of Mark Nickolas, who writes the BluegrassReport.org political blog.

Louisville attorney Jennifer Moore, who is working with Public Citizen on the lawsuit, said the state unconstitutionally singled out Nickolas' political news site. She also said Nickolas is not seeking any monetary damages, but the lawsuit does seek attorney fees.

"It's not about the money," Moore said. "It's about constitutional rights. The government says it wants its employees to be informed. But when the government decides what news they can read, that's dangerous."

Fletcher's press office referred calls to Jill Midkiff, a spokeswoman for the Finance Cabinet. She said the state had no immediate comment on the suit.

[...]

The Fletcher administration contended that it was not targeting Nickolas' blog, but had formulated a policy to add to a list of sites banned on state employees' computers, including gambling and pornographic sites.

But blogs on mainstream media Web sites, as well as prominent conservative blogs such as the Drudge Report, remained accessible, Moore said.

She said the state's blocking of BluegrassReport.org constitutes content-based discrimination.

"While the state may regulate what its employees do during work hours, it cannot selectively control the reading material of employees based on content. The state also cannot discriminate based on traditional and non-traditional media sites."

Greg Beck, the Public Citizen attorney who filed the lawsuit, said in a statement: "The state has not consistently enforced its ban and has not yet given a coherent reason why blogs devoted to news and politics should be treated any differently than traditional news sites.

"The circumstances of this case suggest that the state intentionally targeted Bluegrass Report because of the political content of the site."

Listed as defendants in the lawsuit are Fletcher, Finance Secretary John Farris and Executive Cabinet Secretary Robbie Rudolph.

U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell has been assigned the lawsuit. No hearing date has been set.