County mandates porn-free hotels for ...

County mandates porn-free hotels for employees

There are 36 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Sep 7, 2010, titled County mandates porn-free hotels for employees. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

The Winona County Board has voted to require county employees to stay at hotels where pay-per-view pornography is not available.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Gruntcakes

Saint Paul, MN

#21 Sep 8, 2010
does this include homoporn? would barney frank be exempt from this policy?
Kevin G

Hugo, MN

#22 Sep 8, 2010
Can government get any further up our a.....?
Suzanne

Carol Stream, IL

#23 Sep 8, 2010
There is no link between porn and sexual violence.

The proponents of this probably want women to wear long skirts and veils to prevent rape also.
GiveMeABreak

AOL

#24 Sep 8, 2010
Smartypants wrote:
so, let's see...
1) County employees can still pick up a nudie mag at a nearby convenience store
2) Co. employees can access online porn if they have an laptop, Iphone, or other similar phone
3) Co. employees can go still visit a local strip club
4) Co. employees can still order an in room "massage"
Yup, problem solved.
Yeah, like they solved the problem [if there is one].

Since: Jul 08

Brooklyn Park

#25 Sep 8, 2010
What if the last available room in town offers porn? Does the poor person sleep in the airport or car?
Ron Jeremy

Maple Plain, MN

#26 Sep 8, 2010
I think it is hilarious. Now these county employees will have to ask at check in, "Do you have porn available in your rooms?"
NoSht

Minneapolis, MN

#27 Sep 8, 2010
Bird wrote:
What idiots. Who would actually watch porn and expect to claim it on expenses?
1. Judging from what I see of some government employees, yes I'm sure there are some that claim it on expenses.
2. It isn't about expenses, it's all about control, PERIOD.
3. You can bet if it was gay porn and the hotel was not on the list of "approved" hotels/motels, the ACLU would be worked into a lather over this and exceptions would be made.
4. And it's still about control, nothing else.

Since: Sep 08

Saint Paul, MN

#28 Sep 8, 2010
Gruntcakes wrote:
does this include homoporn? would barney frank be exempt from this policy?
or larry craig?
Justin

Minneapolis, MN

#29 Sep 8, 2010
As a cost saving measure of taxpayer money, I like it.

As a platitude of reducing sexual violence, it won't do a damn thing.

Since: Jan 09

United States of America

#30 Sep 8, 2010
Who's business is it if an employee watches porn? If its on his or her own time, how can this be legal? They didn't mention saving any money, just monitoring the moral behavior of their employees.

Since: Sep 08

Saint Paul, MN

#31 Sep 8, 2010
The Golf Guy wrote:
Who's business is it if an employee watches porn? If its on his or her own time, how can this be legal? They didn't mention saving any money, just monitoring the moral behavior of their employees.
you are correct
Diaz

Cameron, WI

#32 Sep 8, 2010
The Golf Guy wrote:
Who's business is it if an employee watches porn? If its on his or her own time, how can this be legal? They didn't mention saving any money, just monitoring the moral behavior of their employees.
If they are traveling as government employees, there is a public expectation of good judgment on their part. This is no different than employers censoring employee emails, monitoring facebook pages, etc. If we believe that this instance is indicative of overstepping by employers, maybe we need to address this issue across the board for all employees, public and private.

Since: Jan 09

United States of America

#33 Sep 8, 2010
Diaz wrote:
<quoted text>
If they are traveling as government employees, there is a public expectation of good judgment on their part. This is no different than employers censoring employee emails, monitoring facebook pages, etc. If we believe that this instance is indicative of overstepping by employers, maybe we need to address this issue across the board for all employees, public and private.
Gov employees are not role models.
Margin of Error

Minneapolis, MN

#34 Sep 8, 2010
A Happy Ending.
Diaz

Cameron, WI

#35 Sep 8, 2010
The Golf Guy wrote:
<quoted text> Gov employees are not role models.
I agree, but it seems that doesn't matter, if the media or a politician decides to play "gotcha" with some poor sap. It would be interesting to know how this new "porn-free" policy came to be, as well as how it became big news. There has to be more to this story.
Sarah D

Saint Paul, MN

#36 Sep 8, 2010
They're opening up a can of worms here. They'll have to have a list of "approved hotels" which means they will have to define what they consider to be porn which can open the county up to lawsuits if some hotels take exception to being defined as hotels that offer "pornography" as opposed to simply adult entertainment.

Lawyers will love this however.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Winona Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
help me find an old friend (Feb '14) Feb '16 Cwolfe918507 3
News Federal contractor Fastenal fined $1.3 million ... (Oct '15) Oct '15 Spotted Girl 1
Participate in an Important Transportation Focu... (May '15) May '15 SEMNTravelStudy 1
King Mansions (Feb '07) Apr '15 Neva 61
News Mechanic finds 'Favre' goat in trunk (Aug '09) Oct '14 Tyler 2
10,150 - Judge Fabian Gone (Oct '09) Aug '14 smarter than you 9
News Hells Angels, Outlaws motorcycle gangs brawl in... (Apr '10) Jul '14 noneya 151

Winona Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Winona Mortgages