Here's the background to the story. I work for a big training provider. A few years ago, one of its regional managers had a massive argument with the rest of the management (let me just say that he was 'the good guy' in the whole thing). He had to go. Then he set up his own small company of the same type (ie. a training provider).

Soon after that my company blocked his website so that it can't be accessed from our company's network. That's the error that pops up:
I understand that a private company can block whatever content they wish, but categorising it as hacking/spyware, etc.?! Isn't it just slightly illegal? Especially that I know that there's nothing wrong with the website (keywords,etc.) because I created and manage the website myself. By the way, all other training providers' websites are accessible without any problems. Clearly my bosses don't like their ex-colleague.

How on earth could that be illegal?? Slander?? It's your companies own proxy, using their network and their internet uplinks, and their employees company time. They're entitled to restrict access as they see fit.

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of defamation/slander.

Manage!? Note the tense. Fraternising with the enemy or did I get it wrong?

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by laziness. It could be that they threw it into the malware category because it didn't fit anywhere else, and why bother creating a new category?

In terms of defamation, I think it actually is,
seing that the web page has not Spyware nor any malicious software,
but it is a legal option,
Anyways if I were you I would not even try to get to that page from work, that could get you in trouble.

LOL. I've never thought of it that way. Well, he's never been MY enemy and what I do outside of my normal working hours is none of their business (at least it shouldn't be). Anyway, they are letting me go next month so any potential conflict of interests will disappear

That's clearly not the case here

Not really, we have to access tens of similar websites everyday and I or our students can have hundreds of valid reason why we would want to access this particular site.

As a lowly user facing rejection from the proxy on a daily basis I would recommend contacting the IT helpdesk as it indicates in the message. If you can provide justification my proxy management is quite responsive to opening up access for me. Sometimes proxy configuration seems to come down in a general harsh way. Heaven forbid the *nix administrators have access to download putty, visit oracle.com, or ibm.com or a host of other sites that are computer related.

How do you know? Are you the one who implemented the rule, or have you talked to the individual who did?

You are right. I can't know it for sure.

My question remains: if it were done deliberately, would everything be 100% in compliance with the law. I mean I'm not going to do anything with it as it's between those two companies and I don't want to get involved in it. I'm just curious.

Why wouldn't it be in compliance with the law? Defamation is not a criminal violation, only a civil one, assuming it rises to the level of defamation.

It sounds to me more like petty spiteful childish vindictiveness. As long as they aren't out in public badmouthing him, it's likely not actionable civilly or criminally.

It also sounds as if you are well rid of this bunch.

Rule of review board is "Management has the right to manage."

That reads as management the right to also mismanage.

They have the legal and court tested right to say what is allowed and what is not. Period.

You have NO reasonable expectation that management has to do anything for your personal delight. Viewing that site on company dime is their right and you HAVE to comply or you can get fired and won't get your job back. Find someone on nexus-lexus and review cases.