Wisconsin Capitol WiFi blocks pro-union website

[RamboLiberal]

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin spoke out forcefully Tuesday after it was discovered that the state Capitol had blocked a website that was attempting to organize those protesting Republican Gov. Scott Walker's plan to strip unions of their rights.

Anyone trying to use the state Capitol's Wi-Fi connection to access www.defendwisconsin.org Monday and early Tuesday received an error message.

University of Wisconsin-Madison Teacher Assistants created the website to share information with protesters and let them know where volunteers were needed. Democratic party officials claimed that it was available at the Capitol until at least last Friday.

"In a direct assault on the First Amendment, Scott Walker's administration is blocking access in the Wisconsin Capitol to opposition websites," Wisconsin Democratic Party press secretary Graeme Zielinski told CNN.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/22/wisconsin-capitol-blocks-pro-union-website/

Just like the totalitarian dictators!

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. Hosni Walker, eh?

[justiceischeap]

2. Apparently Walker forgets who pays the bills in his state

That would be all those people he is denying First Amendment rights to.

[SoCalDem]

5. He understands completely.

He can control the "workplace" wifi, because he's the boss.

People who object can complain and maybe file a lawsuit, but in the interim, he can and will do whatever he wants to do.

He's shown himself for what he is..a stubborn bully .. an incarnation of GWBush

a Chris Christie clone (clown?)

He will get away with it, because he has the numbers and the money on his side..

Impeach the bastard in a year and pray that it holds up..

[Exultant Democracy]

3. Wow, what a fool. Next time there is a election maybe dems will show up after this.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Tacky, but not a First Amendment violation

More over existing law allows network operators to take whatever means they choose to protect their networks, to include blacklisting. Nothing in the law says the packets must go through.

Tacky, but not unconstitutional...

[jberryhill]

6. Query whether the situation is different when the network operator is a govt entity

I completely agree with your observation in relation to privately owned networks.

Absent malicious conduct directed at network infrastructure or illegal activity, when the provider is the government (and regardless of what the TOS says), I'm not as certain.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. As I understand it, there is no requirement that the packets must go through

regardless of network owner.

I have been given several different sets of facts as to the nature of the network (in-house, public, secure, wide open, etc). That might have some bearing, but I doubt it. While it may clearly be a political move, it is most likely not illegal, and certainly not unconstitutional.

[jberryhill]

8. "Likely" and "certainly" are two distinct states of mind, no?

I always admire the certain, because I can never quite get there.

I can understand free WiFi with a TOS that says, "You'll get what we allow through."

Let's change the facts... A government entity provides a free WiFi service that blocks all atheist websites, and allows all Christian ones. Is that different? Is it permissible?

The government was under no duty to provide the service in the first place, but I'm not as certain whether the voluntary "as is" nature of the service permits content based regulation - even if free, even if voluntary, and even if "as is". The only rationale for the blocking in my hypothetical is to promote a particular religious viewpoint.

Part of me thinks, even if free, voluntary and "as is" that access regulation must be content neutral.

You are looking at it from the publisher/network operator standpoint, but what about the user/network operator interface?

"Content neutral" would not embrace blocking of unlawful, malicious, etc., stuff.

I'm not sure a government operator is situated similarly to a private operator (even if free, voluntary, etc.) The government doesn't have to provide wifi in its facilities, but if they do...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. I don't know the local laws, but using the notional set providers operate on nationally, there is no

issue that I can see. It is the same set of laws used to fight spamming which allow netops to choose and manage their traffic as see fit. Networks are free to block any site for any reason and they do. Whether it is a private firewall or entire nations. Blocking/blacklisting has been through the legal wringer and survived. Companies are free to block union sites as well as You-Tube, job search sites etc. Fed Government does it too and on a fairly large scale. There are groups and organizations set up just to manage large block lists. Many are not US based just to minimize nuisance lawsuits. See http://www.spamhaus.org/ and http://www.sorbs.net/

The anti spam efforts are also why net neutrality has never really existed but that is a another topic entirely...

[jberryhill]

14. Spam is not "content based"

That is operationally based.

And, again, commercial providers are differently situated.

I'm not sure you read my whole posts, because I specifically mentioned "non content based" blocking.

"Networks are free to block any site for any reason and they do."

So the Anytown School District can block access to any web page with the word "Jewish" on it?

Is that your position?

A town noise ordinance that prohibits Muslim calls to prayer and churchbells alike is perfectly fine, because it is a noise ordinance based on a rational state interest in reducing noise - any noise, from any source. I'm not sure whether you appreciate the difference between what private actors can do with respect to content, and what government is prohibited from doing with respect to content.

If some school district in Idaho decides to block the NAACP website - not because it is spam, porn, virus-laden, or what have you, but BECAUSE it is the NAACP website, is going to have a problem.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Content based blocking is also legal and is done quite often in schools

No significant legal challenges to it at this point. It is where Net Nanny and similar programs make their money. Public libraries are clearly different.

Spam is indeed about consent, not content.

[jberryhill]

20. The courts disagree with you

If by content, you are referring to porn then, again, showing porn to minors is independently illegal.

The cases involving libraries did not turn on the fact thatcher were libraries. Those cases turned on the fact that it was the government doing the blocking.

You have not proposed a single rationale for blocking this particular website on a state run information system provided to the public. You are to the right of Rehnquist on this question.

When there are two cases supporting a contrary proposition to a question about which you are "certain", and none suggesting any support, then it is time to re-examine your certainty.

To be clear - I am not saying that this alleged act is a first amendment problem. I am addressing your categorical rejection that there is even an issue. That is clear error unless you would like to provide a citation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Not at a school they have not. The cases only involve adult access at libraries

I am saying that there is most likely no legal issue here. It would be driven by the terms of network use and its purpose. It is still not clear that it is a state run open network. There are several different views of that still circulating.

I got involved in legality of network management some years ago and have followed it fairly closely. There is no precedent (other than the libraries) requiring any network provider or ISP to provide full unfettered access. Even those addressed only terminal restrictions, not larger net blocking. Network operators are allowed to block emails and even address ranges from their routers, servers, etc.

[jberryhill]

22. Yes, because schools by definition have minor users

The libraries are a better comparison, since they are government facilities for a general population, as would be any other government facility.

If you'd like to cite legal authority supporting your position that it is "certainly not" a First Amendment issue, feel free. Otherwise, I am moving on.

[jberryhill]

16. Mainstream Loudoun et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library et al.

Mainstream Loudoun, et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, 24 F.Supp.2d 552 (E.D. of Va. 1998)

Adopted in 1997, the Loudoun County, Va., Library Board's "Policy on Internet Sexual Harassment" was designed to prevent adult and minor Internet users from accessing illegal pornography and to avoid the creation of a sexually hostile environment. To accomplish these goals, the board contracted with Log-On Data Corporation, a filtering software manufacturer that offers a product called "X-Stop." Though Log-On Data Corp. refused to divulge the method by which X-Stop filters sites, it soon became apparent that the software blocks some sites that are not prohibited by the policy. Shortly after the adoption of the policy, People for the American Way Foundation commenced litigation on behalf of several Loudoun County residents and members of a nonprofit organization, claiming the policy violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. The suit was predicated on the theory that the policy is unnecessarily restrictive, because it treats adults and children similarly, and precludes access to legitimate as well as pornographic material. On November 23, 1998, Judge Leonie Brinkema declared that the highly restrictive Loudoun County Internet policy was invalid under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment.

United States, et al. v. American Library Association, Inc. et al., 539 U.S. 194, 123 S.Ct. 2297, 156 L.Ed.2d 221 (2003)

The Supreme Court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act, which requires libraries receiving federal funds for Internet access to install filters so that both adult and child patrons cannot access materials considered obscene, child pornography, or "harmful to minors." Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the judgment of the court that the law, on its face, is Constitutional. Speaking for a plurality of four justices, Rehnquist held that CIPA was a valid exercise of Congress' spending power and did not impose an unconstitutional condition on public libraries that received federal assistance for Internet access because Congress could reasonably impose limitations on its Internet assistance, and because any concerns over filtering software's alleged tendency to erroneously "overblock" access to constitutionally protected speech were dispelled by the ease with which library patrons could have the filtering software disabled. Justices Kennedy and Breyer concurred with the judgment, holding that CIPA, while raising First Amendment concerns, did not violate the First Amendment as long as adult library users could request that the Internet filter be disabled without delay.

[Bluebear]

17. Thank you, as usual a fountain of pertinent information, jberryhill!

:thumbsup:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Libarries may not be on point

Again, I come back to what kind of network it is.

- If it is a freely accessible open public network provided as a government service, the library decisions may be on point. However operators are still allowed to defend the network. For example, if they are using a Spamhaus or similar method that blocks the /16 a server is in, there is not case to be had.

- If it is an unprotected internal network, those not authorized to use it have committed the equivalent of digital trespassing and are at risk of being charged. They also have no standing to complain about any blocks. Those authorized to use that network as government employees can complain to the inhouse networking group, but again there is no grounds to go to court. Government agencies are allowed to control net access for in house personnel.

[Hosnon]

24. Government entity vs. private entity is definitely a relevant distinction. nt.

[Zywiec]

10. So the Wisconsin capital is required to provde WiFi? n/t

[jberryhill]

13. No, and by golly just maybe I posted more about that

The Wisconsin government is not required to provide WiFi.

The question is, IF they do, then does their position impose conditions that would not be present if they were a private entity.

Take the annual "Jesus in the Manger" follies.

A city does not have to permit any holiday displays in December in the town square.

But, IF THEY DO, they cannot promote any one religious viewpoint. (Hence, the "Frosty the Snowman" rule)

It doesn't matter whether government is acting according to mandate, or because they wanted to do something neat and fun. The City of Anytown is not required to have an annual square dance party either. But if they decide to have one, they can't have "The Annual No Jews Square Dance."

[Hosnon]

23. I disagree. This isn't just any network operator, it's a government entity.

And while they may not have to provide wifi, if they do, they must do so equally.

[yellowcanine]

11. Walk-er like an Egyptian (Dictator)!

[fishwax]

12. that's pretty outrageous, if true

:kick:

[BlueIris]

15. Good luck with that, Fuckos.

Goooood luck.