Gov. Walker has decided to suspend 1st Amendment

[CowboyBob]

Walker is a thug. Worldwide this is an anti-thug era. Too bad he didn't go into teaching instead of politics. Oh, that's right. One needs a degree to teach.

You are correct, he is a dropout and a quitter. Also had a low grade point average.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Walker_(politician)

There's a lot of that in the Republican party.

On topic:

He is a thug.

 

[chrisrobin]

literally creating a federal case over a website being blocked effectively on what amount's to a company's wireless internet seems like an awesome use of the government's time and money.

1.) The resignation of Richard Milhous Nixon started as a "third rate break-in."

2.) The two Middle-East wars remind me of "awesome use of the government's time and money."

3.) Would cutting the phone lines in the Capitol Bldg. be the same as a website being blocked? It's not the website(s) being blocked that counts. It's the intent of the blockage that is the issue.

4.) The denial of collective bargaining to public workers already is a "federal case". The "coward" Democrats have walked out of the legislature in Indiana. Tomorrow, perhaps Ohio.

 

[BostonPirate]

If you were talking about the internet in general, you might have a point. But we're talking about the WiFi for the WI statehouse, which was never meant to be used for this purpose. This is no different than an employer blocking facebook or anything else that is a) eating up bandwidth, or b) distracting from the ability of people to work. There is nothing insidious or wrong about it.

The first amendment argument is nonsense, and the controversy is just being ginned up as one more reason to criticize Walker.

We're not Fox viewers, here, JB. We aren't going to suspend common sense just because someone tells us what we want to hear.

we know the governor is trying to interfere with the people's right to peacably organize.

He's a fool. Hr can't manage his office or his state. Just a few weeks in, and he's got the entire state in revolt. The institutions of government are shutdown because he refuses to negotiate and compromise, and he is unaware of what the constitution means and what peoples perceptions of his actions mean to him and republicans around the nation.

He's a fucking twat.

And he's as shady as an Oak Tree.

 

[BostonPirate]

the fuck does that have to do with anything?



cutting the phone lines to the capitol building would be illegal for reasons that have nothing to do with the first amendment. the building is under no compulsion to provide free wifi to guests inside the building in the first place.



as it should be. just because I don't buy into your trumped up outrage and making this out to be more than it is doesn't mean I'm supportive of the governor.

public colleges across the country have blocked various websites on their networks for various reasons. it's not a violation of the first amendment.

I don't think that the government of egypt was under obligation to supply the people with wifi either, yet blocking it was their undoing during the protests.

 

[BostonPirate]

sure. I'm not all "yay, censorship!" but blocking a website on a private wireless network is not in any conceivable way a violation of the first amendment.

(and on a side-note, what the Egyptian government did was strong-arm local ISP's into going dark. I can't imagine that happening in the US without a major uproar)

so you agree that the governor is using censorship to interfere with the protesters ability to organize.

I think if it went to trial a jury of his peers would agree with this sentiment.

 

[JB3]

We're not Fox viewers, here, JB. We aren't going to suspend common sense just because someone tells us what we want to hear.

we know the governor is trying to interfere with the people's right to peacably organize.

He's a fool. Hr can't manage his office or his state. Just a few weeks in, and he's got the entire state in revolt. The institutions of government are shutdown because he refuses to negotiate and compromise, and he is unaware of what the constitution means and what peoples perceptions of his actions mean to him and republicans around the nation.

He's a fucking twat.

And he's as shady as an Oak Tree.

No one's suggesting otherwise about Walker.

But your fake outrage over some supposed violation of the first amendment is laughable. Free WiFi is a privilege not a right. Access to this website on said WiFi is, again, a privilege and not a right. There are no first amendment issues here.

Perhaps the protestors should learn to do it the old fashioned way and pick up a damn phone.

 

[BostonPirate]

So we should only expect our ellected officials to NOT do the immoral thing ONLY when there's a law that expressly forbids it??

Your words, even in defending him reflect how obvious the truth is to everyone about these actions of his....

I'm sure the website was blocked on the private network deliberately

Only you are forgetting one thing.... the people protesting in that building? they are the ones that paid the taxes that paid for the WIFI in that and all government buildings, and the governor is a temporary caretaker of that building... getting more and more temporary as each day passes.

Policitians who say they are clean of doing the wrong thing because what they do may be immoral, but not illegal never make it. it may be a good idea in a court of law, but in the land of politics, it will kill your career.

 

[JB3]

so you agree that the governor is using censorship to interfere with the protesters ability to organize.

I think if it went to trial a jury of his peers would agree with this sentiment.

THERE'S NO CENSORSHIP ON A PRIVATE WIFI NETWORK!

I really think you guys are taking yourselves way too seriously with this. This would get laughed out of court if any of these protestors decided to waste their money on it.

 

[BostonPirate]

No one's suggesting otherwise about Walker.

But your fake outrage over some supposed violation of the first amendment is laughable. Free WiFi is a privilege not a right. Access to this website on said WiFi is, again, a privilege and not a right. There are no first amendment issues here.

Perhaps the protestors should learn to do it the old fashioned way and pick up a damn phone.

who the FUCK are you to decide whether my outrage is fake or not.

Those people pay that damned bill in their taxes and that governor works for THEM not reverse. This guy needs to get his head out of his ass and remember who the government is of and by.

 

[JB3]

who the FUCK are you to decide whether my outrage is fake or not.

Those people pay that damned bill in their taxes and that governor works for THEM not reverse. This guy needs to get his head out of his ass and remember who the government is of and by.

Because when you get your panties in a wad over a made-up issue, then your outrage is fake. You're pissed that an elected governor is deciding to take on the public employee Unions in his state, and you're grasping at weak straws to make asinine arguments.

We're not talking about public wifi boston. We're talking about wifi that is used in a place of BUSINESS. Thousands of extra connections would destroy any ability to do business using that network.

There IS NO CENSORSHIP. Just more fake outrage from partisan political hacks like you.

 

[JB3]

So we should only expect our ellected officials to NOT do the immoral thing ONLY when there's a law that expressly forbids it??

Your words, even in defending him reflect how obvious the truth is to everyone about these actions of his....



Only you are forgetting one thing.... the people protesting in that building? they are the ones that paid the taxes that paid for the WIFI in that and all government buildings, and the governor is a temporary caretaker of that building... getting more and more temporary as each day passes.

Policitians who say they are clean of doing the wrong thing because what they do may be immoral, but not illegal never make it. it may be a good idea in a court of law, but in the land of politics, it will kill your career.

Who cares if they pay the taxes? They're interfering with the ability of government to do its work. Just because they pay taxes doesn't give them a free pass to get whatever they want from the government.

 

[BostonPirate]

The people ARE the government of america, and when our ability to interact is intervened with in any way by the caretakers we ellect, we have no option but swift action, or we the people will lose. Its not a slippery slope. Its a straight drop off cliff.

 

[laikaNYC]

We're not Fox viewers, here, JB. We aren't going to suspend common sense just because someone tells us what we want to hear.

we know the governor is trying to interfere with the people's right to peacably organize.

He's a fool. Hr can't manage his office or his state. Just a few weeks in, and he's got the entire state in revolt. The institutions of government are shutdown because he refuses to negotiate and compromise, and he is unaware of what the constitution means and what peoples perceptions of his actions mean to him and republicans around the nation.

He's a fucking twat.

And he's as shady as an Oak Tree.

The Governor is trying to bring state costs down. I applaud him. His state is broke.

 

[BostonPirate]

The Governor is trying to bring state costs down. I applaud him. His state is broke.

His state had a balanced budget until he started tinkering with it.

He is union busting. Just have balls and say you agree with union busting. We can spare each other the pretense.

 

[bankside]

If the wifi is available for the use of state employees, then this is not an issue. The government can determine what sites are work-related, and then allow or restrict access accordingly.

However, if the wifi is available as a public amenity, such as is often the case at public libraries, etc., then the state has no business controlling the available content; that is a form of censorship equal to book burning.

Given that it is open to "guests" then it functions more as a public amenity. If it were only there for employees, the'd need an ID and password to log on.

This is not an impressive move.

 

[bankside]

isn't the rule on libraries that they can employ content filters if they so chose, but they're required to lift the filter on any website that a patron asks them to?

the wording of the OP's article says that the website was blocked until Tuesday morning, which seems to imply that the block has since been lifted.

(if indeed their wifi is considered to be a public amenity, which I don't necessarily agree with)

I don't know of such a rule, however in principle a content filter based on age restriction (as with cinema) would probably have a basis in law, and that law would probably be consistent with principles of freedom and openness.

Beyond that however, governments can choose to fund or not fund public wifi, but once they commit to funding it, they don't have the prerogative to pick and choose what people view. Again, making it open like that suggests it has the character of a public amenity.

 

[Joshua_me]

You're right. The Founding Fathers did not mention anything about Wi-Fi in the U.S. Constitution.

I'm sure it was just an oversight.

 

[pat grimshaw]

… Your interpretation is one-sided and so predictable…

Your interpretation is so one-sided and predictable.

 

[BostonPirate]

LOL a@ Joshua

and my last comment on this for the evening will just be to remind people that the reason the republicans lost the presidency is because they had no concept of the internet, its power, and what it means to the youth of the world.

I think they are going to get another lesson on that until they learn not to fuck with it.

 

[hotatlboi]

THERE'S NO CENSORSHIP ON A PRIVATE WIFI NETWORK!

That is correct. However, this was not a private wifi network.

First of all, it was being operated by the WI government, which is a public institution payed for by taxes. Second, access to the network was made publicly available. Hence, this network was public any way you want to look at it.

Given these facts, the government should not be censoring the network to silence political opposition or make it difficult for demonstrators to organize.

If this was a private network with restricted access where it was determine that the people who were authorized to access the network only needed access to certain sites, or if this were a privately owned network, I would agree with you. But the way this network was being utilized was as a public resource operated by a government agency. That makes it a bit different when considering first amendment issues.

I agree that "access to wifi" is not a right the government must grant you, however, the facts being as they are that the Wisconsin government has made this public resource available, this is not the kind of activity they should be doing.