Correction: dissenting opinion is shown on a semi-free basis.

I understand not allowing a post that is simply derogatory, contains "cuss" words, or attack an identifiable person without verifiable substance. (i.e. TSO Joe Blow at XXX airport is a thief)

I had one of my posts deleted because of a perfectly good word but a word that Blogger Bob thought would send his bosses off grid.

The Blog team needs to be autonomous and protected from reprisal for non-SSI issues. Blogger Bob should not catch hell because he allows a post that uses CYA in it.

In fact the TSA Blog should be a font of information. I should be able to ask where the illegal forced ID verification is in the SOP and the Blog team should be able to tell me the "chapter and verse" if not the actual text. (True SSI information redacted, of course)

I too like the Blog and think the TSA has done the best job of any of the Government blogs. Most of the blogs are just postings of the releases you can subscribe to.

Personally I would hate to be in Blogger Bob's position. He works for people that were placed not for their abilities but rather for their political chumminess with the "right" people. This new chick is perfect proof of that.

I agree that some of the posts could be allowed, but one of the problems is the fact that the blog is a government operated site and it will always be limited by the same standards as the other gov sites. Bland language for the most part, non offensive (as much as possible), basic govspeak in other words. That is not necessarily bad because it is supposed to be family friendly. The direct attacks and junk language have to be culled to keep it as close to family friendly as possible.

I think it is good to see spirited debate on things, I actually think the blog does a decent job of allowing most posts through with no modifications. If you look, most of the posts are dissenting from the agency (although there are more in support lately). The problem is that fine line between politically correct and socially acceptable, this line is much closer to politically correct on the gov sites than other places. Socially acceptable varies based on audience and subject matter, and in the case of gov sites it leans way more conservative in language and substance.

I agree 100% that the blog should be (and currently is a decent) font of knowledge. We could put more info out, but there are so many limitations on what they can put out and what gets cleared by legal and what is in court and.... you get the idea. I would love to see a couple of posts a week, but it seems that is not optimum for generating meaningful discussion on the posts that are there.

I too think that the TSA blog is the best of the gov blogs, by far. It seems to be much more willing to publish dissent than the others so far.

Bob is in a pretty tough position, he has many posters that berate and belittle him for things he has no control over. He is pretty tough guy though, so he sholders it fairly well.

I wonder, though ... it seems to me like part of the reason Bob takes so much abuse there is that, for stuff out of his control, Bob is pretty much left out there to take the hit. It's very hard for a casual blogger to tell the difference between "Bob not answering the question because he's not allowed to" and "Bob not answering the question because he's ignoring it". And so, some of the venom that ought to be more properly aimed at the agency is instead aimed at the person --- which is both unfair and unproductive.

It seems to me like TSA could make Bob's job a little easier on the blog in any number of ways, just by allowing him more resources and flexibility in how he's allowed to interact with the public on the blog.

By the Constitution the government cannot limit speech. Even with more recent decisions by the USSC speech limitations are very limited. Political speech is one of the most protected classes of speech and that is what most of the comments to the PV Blog are, political statements.

The TSA Blog violates the Constitution and even violates its own stated posting standards on a regular bases.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong on this one.

First, the government limits speech all the time. The FCC limits speech on public airways. The US Capitol Police can require a permit for political demonstrations on the steps of the Capitol Building. The judiciary system regulates speech by enforcing laws dealing with slander and libel, which are acts of speech. And so on.

Second, even with an edited blog, the government isn't limiting your right to speak. After all, you're speaking here, without needing permission from the government. And even if the blog moderators here delete your post, you're free to start your own blog and speak away to your heart's content.

After all ... if TSA decided to shut down the blog, wouldn't that also be a "limit on speech"? Clearly TSA would be within its rights to do that, right?

Maybe Bob should invite us by for "open mike" night...

WHY DOESN'T FLYER TALK realize that people have the right to free speech ? Seems so elementary.

You aren't even allowed to discuss moderators here!

LOL

First Amendment only applies to the Goverment and, last time I checked, FlyerTalk is not a part of any government.

This blog is not funded with monies from taxpayers. I post here at the pleasure of the blog owners.

PV is funded with tax monies and must adhere to First Admendment provisions.

TSA and Bob have no right to pick and choose which comments they allow.

Except that the government does that all the time. The FCC is funded by tax money, and yet restrict what broadcasters can say over the public airways. The First Amendment doesn't seem to affect them ...

And be careful what you wish for. Do you really want the TSA blog filled with link-spam? (At least, more than appears already?) After all, that's protected speech under the First Amendment ...

I think his job will get easier the longer the blog is up and running. He will be able to insulate himself a bit more with time. I also think the floow of information is going to get better on some subjects, and worse on others. The SSI really limits some of the things he can put out and like you said, sometimes that makes it look like he is leaving the posters hanging with no response.

The FCC regs indicate obscene language is not protected by the 1st amendment in publication. It is still a fairly gray area on websites, and difficult to enforce because a lot of sites are private or overseas, etc. The Gov sites fall basically under the provisions set forth here. I can't find the specific regs (I don't have time right now). These are essentially what the blog operates under http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html

Bob is entirely withing his rights to censor posts that have anything in the posted rules, or that fall under obscenity regs. Direct attacks get a lot of posts removed - not references to someone making a comment and addressing it directly, but pointed attacks. Most phrases that indicate the usage of obscenity (CYA ..., etc) fall under the same guidelines.

I have had numerous submissions that have been rejected at PV, all of which complied with the stated posting guidelines.

The problem with the illegal censorship as practiced by Bob at TSA's PV is that there is no proof showing why a post was rejected. TSA has sat itself up as judge, jury and hangman. No archive of rejected posts are available demonstrating Bob's claim and everyone knows Bob has been less than forthright with the truth since blog inception.

I maintain that the speech on PV is political speech and is protected to a much higher degree than other forms of speech.

First, I doubt much, if anything, Bob is deleting is "obscene."

Second, I am not aware of how the FCC rules have anything to do with blogs. The FCC's rules are generally about what can be broadcast over-the-air.

Third, CYA is not an obscene word by any stretch of the imagination. Some may consider it profane, but it is not obscene. In fact, I can't think of a single word that by itself would be considered obscene.

Freedom of speech still is permitted on the web. That is why people can use profane language and why "adult" websites exist.

Like I said, I can't find the regs on it, but I am fairly sure that the rules are going to be a fairly comparable set of rules on language. That just seems to be the way the gov sites work (again, I can't find the regs, so don't hold me accountable on that one, I am merely making an observation on how there are similarities). I disagree with you on the CYA thing. Look at it from a different perspective, things that we post now would have probably gotten us a jail sentence 50 years ago. It is about socially acceptable at this point and the common lexicon does not allow for the same level of language that this site or similiar ones do. As for CYA, a large amount of people will look at it and have no idea what that means, another larger part will think "cover your a**", and then there are those that will get outraged because the next thought after recognizing it is something like "how dare they let that filth on a government website" then they call their congress person, or senator and rail about how the site is trashy, blah - and so on. I think the limiting of things like CYA and other short versions is a form of heading off that type of situation (you might say another version of CYA). There are several words that are considered obscene by themselves by a large contingent of the populace, therefore they are not allowed. You may be an anomoly, but I was in the Army and sometimes it seems like I can't think of a word that is obscene enough (although I have a rather extensive vocabulary of vulgarities in many languages). I also know that those words are much better suited to private conversation (usually with myself) and with others that share that type of speech pattern. This just seems like a normal limiting of language that could be percieved as obscene or offensive. Of course, this is just my opinion and I am a guy from NC that likes to fish, so what do I know?