Slashdot Mirror
Boston Bans Boing Boing From City Wi-Fi
DrFlounder writes "The city of Boston has apparently blocked access to Boing Boing on the municipal Wi-Fi. This is possibly due to the popular blog's known Mooninite sympathies." Update: 4/22 13:11 GMT by KD : Seth Finkelstein did some research and posted an explanation of the blockage to his blog. "'Arbitrary and capricious' seems the relevant characterization."
Is there anywhere left in the world where the government isn't equal parts hilarious and incompetent?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Where's your sense of style?
"Boston Bans Boing Boing Because of a Blog"
Slagborr
Sealand
The mayor was quoted as saying that a "'Boing Boing' is clearly some type of explosive device."
I say we commence remoonification.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
There is nothing wrong with this ... except, perhaps, if you hate freedom.
Do not question the mayor. LED cartoons are terrorist threats and non-sycophantic websites are subversion.
Sheesh, just when you think that Boston's government might have learned its lesson from this whole debacle, now they're doing something even dumber and more reprehensible by censoring? What a disgrace.
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
At least the people of Boston have a chance to throw the bums out in the next election. If you're encountering censorship by a cable company given a legal monopoly to "serve" a certain region, you have virtually no recourse unless such a thing was specifically planned for and written into the contract. I know that my city has no control over my cable provider's rates, allowing them to jack prices through the roof. I don't know if there is similar deregulation in the case of censorship, but I wouldn't be surprised.
In the end it's best to have as many choices as possible. So far as I know, having municipal wireless does not preclude the existance of DSL and cable providers.
Electric Monkey Pants
boingboing finds itself frequently banned. One reason is their frequent links to circumventing censorship. Another reason is that they sometimes post NSFW links.
The fact that the government is censoring adults is offensive. But then again, Boston has had a reputation of puritanism.
If they are blocking BoingBoing over the Mooninite issue, then they are censoring political speech critical of the regime.
If the project is funded with public monies, this will be an excellent case to push hard and loudly in court.
- Saying that you can't do something illegal is useless, because it is already illegal.
- Saying that you can't do something legal is wrong, because it is legal.
But really, what are the censoring for? I'm more worried about actual censorship than I am about a bunch of Adult Swim fans not being able to mutually mastubate over their pictures of Mumbles Menino.
Yep. from the graphic accompanying TFA. That's it.
What was the phrase? Don't know.
Why was it blocked? Don't know.
Was the Mayor of Boston involved. Highly unlikely.
Was any authority or elected official involved? Highly unlikely.
Really folks, there is utterly no information here except that some filter somewhere blocked one page on Boingboing's website.
Hardly the First Amendment case that's being suggested and debated.
Three Squirrels
I don't know how things work in Minnesota, but here in Boston we don't generally oust politicians for blocking Boing Boing. This will blow over, and there will be no repercussions. This is one of those situations where a politician can say "Even if someone has a problem with this, people will call them stupid for making a stink about something called Boing Boing."
-William Brendel
www.boston.cn
What?
It's not about boing-boing, it's about filtering on a public network. If the government is providing a public network, it must be open and unfiltered - because the existence of a free public network drives away alternative commercial providers - it may become the only network, or it may be the only network available to some users.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
While I appreciate your comment that they have the opportunity to throw them out at the next election that opportunity will remain just that and nothing else. To be voted out of office in MA takes some serious doing. For an example look at their senior senitor the Honorable Edward M Kennedy, he's often publicly intoxicated, and has even been involved in fleeing the scene of an accident where his campaign worker Mary Jo Kopechne was killed as a result of drowning after the car he was driving was driven off a bridge. I feel all their jobs are safe after all being a drunken murderer isn't enough to keep you from getting reelected.
What a beautiful illustration of the danger -- no, the reality -- of having free wireless internet access provided by the government or a business. They WILL censor, and after they become ubiquitous, the internet won't be able to route around them.
Wireless internet should be provided by mesh networks, with perhaps non-profit associations renting or buying fat pipe for backbone. Do it the bad way, and the gubmint or Rupert Murdock or Clear Channel start telling us who's not to have access this week.
I can understand if a private ISP blocks content, although I don't agree with it. They are a private company and can do things like that, and I can choose not to do business with them. I would rather do without internet access than pay a company to block content.
In this case, it is a government controlled service, and thus clearly falls under free speech rights. Someone needs to bring the constitutionality of this under question in court.
I got nothin'
We should all head down to the harbor and dump crates of routers into the bay. It worked before.
come for the naked robots, stay for the zombies
they don't need to make a federal case out of the matter. it's municipal wifi, but municipal government is still answerable to the citizens of boston as we live in a democratic society. they need to write to their city officials or take it to the city council directly with a petition. there should be municipal policies regulating the administration of public wifi access that prevents city officials from employing political censorship. it's the tax payer's wifi system, so ultimately they have control over how it's run.
I think Boing Boing needs to get a lawyer and get to suing.
If they're going to sue, they need to start with those jokers at Smartfilter.
They use it at my workplace, and it blocks things completely at random. BoingBoing posted some critical articals on Smartfilter and instantly got on their shit list -- Boing Boing is now permanently blocked as "nudity", a blatantly false category designed to get people in trouble for even trying to view it.
If you report the inaccuracy, they claim to fix it, only to ignore it and keep them blocked.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Boston was just using Smartfilter and this is just a symptom of a much larger problem. Smartfilter is, IIRC, the official filter of choice for the US and Iranian governments for blocking naughty content from their masses -- ever since the Republicans managed to con their way into forcing all library machines into being filtered ("Think of the Children" covering the fact that Libraries are poor people's only way to get on the net) Smartfilter has been a bit of a fun toy to play with.
In the middle of the 2006 elections, for example, out of the blue Liberal blogs and Political Canidate websites in Swing States suddenly found themselves blocked as being "curse words" or "mature" or "forums" or other similarly flimsy excuses. Pretty sneaky -- get a censorship filter installed where poor people (who typically vote Democratic) are going to be forced to go through it, then just start randomly blocking political "dissidents" that you don't like. And since Smartfilter has a very, very strict policy (now, anyway) about not REMOVING, only RECATEGORIZING websites... well, yeah.
Its been a while since I read on muni-wifi, so I can't exactly remember how it works, but if it's outsourced to a 3rd party company and only paid for by the city govt' - would the 3rd party/private company be able to block it without bringing the Constitution into this, or because it would be funded by govt' money then it would have to comply with the Constitution??? Even if this isn't the case in Boston, if it is so in other places, I would think it would be a valid question...
Yeah but it's ultimately all about where the money comes from. If the government pays a private "enforcement" firm to be a Gestapo, it is still breaking the constitution.
http://zero-to-enterprise.blogspot.com/
And what if the majority of the citizens of Boston really do hate the blocked site(s)? Then those, who want to access it, are screwed by the same flaw of Democracy, that killed Socrates... And even if citizens of Boston do wise up and force the block to be removed, tell me, what's easier — organize the citizens to protest and petition the government, or switch to a competing service provider?
Municipal WiFi was and remains a profoundly stupid idea, because it effectively blocks the competition through government subsidy. At least, with roads and other infrastructure it could be argued, that we can't have competing ones simply due to the lack of space (although Tokyo manages to have competing subway lines, somehow). But WiFi networks? Please — can put 10 different access point on the same pole...
The illiberal Socialist Boston is showing us all the worst of it. The supposed market failure was used to justify government's encroaching into an area, where it should not be allowed. You — the fans of "Municipal WiFi" — have made this bed. Now sleep in it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I feel the same way about open standards like TCP/IP, developed at public expense (I never would have consented to my money being wasted in this way). Instead of having a range of innovative, privately-developed protocols and networks (imagine being able to choose MSN's or AOL's innovate networking protocols), we are now forced to use a socialist, inefficient protocol like TCP/IP. It's been pretty much a disaster ever since.
Would you be OK with the postal services opening your mail and refusing to carry them if they didn't like their contents, or your phone company listening in to your calls and disconnecting you and/or refusing to allow you to call the same number again in the future based on what you're talking about?
What if those decisions are done by automated systems rather than humans - would you feel better because you knew that no actual person was reading your mail and listening to your phone calls?
You might still say "they're free to do it, and I'm free to take my business elsewhere", but what if everyone does it, and if you had no other choice but to agree to it if you want to be able to send letters or call people on the phone? You might say "I'm gonna encrypt my letters and scramble my phone calls", but what if your postal services company and telco decided that that was against their ToS? Would you still say "I'll just take my business elsewhere"? And again, what if everyone did it and you COULDN'T take your business elsewhere?
Your rights are only worth anything as long as they are actually protected, and that includes protection against non-government entities as well. And while you may argue that forbidding these kinds of things would impinge on the companies' freedom to conduct their business the way they want to, also do keep in mind that non-interference is an essential counterpart to freedom - your right to swing your fist ends where my face starts, and arguably, the same thing applies here.
As long as you just stand somewhere swinging your fist, it may make some sense to say that I simply shouldn't go near you in order to avoid being hit, but if you deduce from that that you're always free to swing your fist, then do consider a situation where I'm in a group of people who're all swinging their fists, with nowhere left to go. Is it my fault then that I get beaten up?
So, yeah, I agree that it does fall under free speech rights, but I also think that saying "if it were a private company, nothing would be wrong with it" is fallacious.
butter the donkey