The reason he has 69 comments (it grew since you posted about it Bill) on his 3rd post is because he heavily promoted it as a live discussion.
In reality, the 69 posts appeared to have come from among only a handful of individuals during last night's hourlong liveblogging conversation. And, many of those comments clearly were from Sen. Murphy himself given this was a live blogging conversation about his proposal.
For evidence of his self-promotion, see here and here and even here (and likely elsewhere, given that at least one police office was aware of the live session).
To me, soliciting comments about banning blogs by hosting a live blog session is a bit ironic (as I said on Rich's blog yesterday). So be it.
And I don't blame Sen. Murphy for his efforts at self-promotion -- he is a freshman legislator in a minority party. If you followed his days as a Harper College trustee he often made it into the paper with various quotes on collegiate matters, so he's adept at getting 'earned media'.
I've met Sen. Murphy a few times. Nice enough guy -- seems like he follows what's in his heart.
That said, I disagree strongly with a blanket ban on free speech such as this; particularly when it affects consenting adults who may wish to use such sites for completely innocent activities (such as investing in real estate or Civil War reenactments). Many schools already do prohibit these sites on school computers which students use -- that's a local decision and certainly makes sense (the sites in general can distract from actual student work). But libraries? The fonts of free information? The better option there would be to suggest that libraries which are able to afford a bank of computers designate some computers as minor-friendly (which, again, many libraries already do).
To me, this is another instance of social conservatives hoping to enforce a nanny-state mentality and use the government to impose their mores on the rest of us whether we like it or not.
If I didn't know him better, I'd think the freshman was grand-standing by introducing a proposal which not only duplicates regulations already in place (notably in schools which already ban these sites) but also inhibits the free speech rights of the general population (whilst simultaneously stroking the backs of social conservatives who tend to think about sex a lot as it is).
Tell truth, I never heard of him before... (I have a sort of mental block on everything between Proviso and the Fox River... as sort of boring... I grew up near west and live now far west).
...but any Pol willing to go out and blog and make himself more accessable is doing ok with me. I just stumbled accross him and posted the link.
lllinoize is about the free expression of divergent ideas. Opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors only. Any disputes, factual or otherwise, should be addressed to the bloggers themselves, who are solely responsible for their posts
3 comments:
Be honest Bill.
The reason he has 69 comments (it grew since you posted about it Bill) on his 3rd post is because he heavily promoted it as a live discussion.
In reality, the 69 posts appeared to have come from among only a handful of individuals during last night's hourlong liveblogging conversation. And, many of those comments clearly were from Sen. Murphy himself given this was a live blogging conversation about his proposal.
For evidence of his self-promotion, see here and here and even here (and likely elsewhere, given that at least one police office was aware of the live session).
To me, soliciting comments about banning blogs by hosting a live blog session is a bit ironic (as I said on Rich's blog yesterday). So be it.
And I don't blame Sen. Murphy for his efforts at self-promotion -- he is a freshman legislator in a minority party. If you followed his days as a Harper College trustee he often made it into the paper with various quotes on collegiate matters, so he's adept at getting 'earned media'.
I've met Sen. Murphy a few times. Nice enough guy -- seems like he follows what's in his heart.
That said, I disagree strongly with a blanket ban on free speech such as this; particularly when it affects consenting adults who may wish to use such sites for completely innocent activities (such as investing in real estate or Civil War reenactments). Many schools already do prohibit these sites on school computers which students use -- that's a local decision and certainly makes sense (the sites in general can distract from actual student work). But libraries? The fonts of free information? The better option there would be to suggest that libraries which are able to afford a bank of computers designate some computers as minor-friendly (which, again, many libraries already do).
To me, this is another instance of social conservatives hoping to enforce a nanny-state mentality and use the government to impose their mores on the rest of us whether we like it or not.
If I didn't know him better, I'd think the freshman was grand-standing by introducing a proposal which not only duplicates regulations already in place (notably in schools which already ban these sites) but also inhibits the free speech rights of the general population (whilst simultaneously stroking the backs of social conservatives who tend to think about sex a lot as it is).
Tell truth, I never heard of him before... (I have a sort of mental block on everything between Proviso and the Fox River... as sort of boring... I grew up near west and live now far west).
...but any Pol willing to go out and blog and make himself more accessable is doing ok with me. I just stumbled accross him and posted the link.
I wonder how many public officials in Illinois have blogs of some type.
Post a Comment