I'd say it's a bet that every reporter involved in this story has used a work machine for personal matters of an explicit nature, whether by forwarding jokes or failing to report co-workers sending them, a tacit acceptance of such rude behavior.
When someone in the public eye does it, well, it's pile-on time.
Yeah, wave that corporate no-no-naughty-stuff policy around, guys. I don't believe it for a second. You've got your geeks running around fixing shit with bailing wire and spit. They're too busy to enforce this torrent of garbage until someone squeaks and calls foul.
Reporters like that are just hypocrite parasites, exploiting the First Amendment for fun and profit.
And so are bloggers, I suppose.
Comments (1)
I think the email issue for public officials is one that remains to be sorted out.
For example, does the prohibition on campaign emails apply to, say, any discussion of one's opponent, even if a reporter emails and asks? If so, is it okay if the candidate is off "public time" but at home on a Blackberry tied to the government server? Or must one NEVER mention a potential campaign opponent by name on a government email account? Etc.
Government officials shouldn't be actively campaigning on government time with government property, and shouldn't be soliciting funds/support with their official email address. But as you suggest, some people may be going overboard in their interpretations of political activity and email.
Posted by kevin whited | January 10, 2008 9:45 AM
Posted on January 10, 2008 09:45