Slashdot Mirror
WI Capitol Blocks Pro-Union Web Site
ISoldat53 writes "State government workers are unable to connect to a pro-union web site, defendwisconsin.org, from the wifi at the state capitol." Someone probably should let Hillary Clinton know.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
You're supposed to be working. Not doing political stuff. While it's a dick move, I rather doubt it's a first amendment violation or the end of the world (as is suggested by TFA).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
In Communist Wisconsin, government censors YOU!
I think the, admittedly non-sequitur, comment was about internet censorship and not suggesting Clinton had any involvement with the unions. Clinton was complaining about shutting off the internet in Egypt, et al.
FTA
"The Department of Administration blocks all new websites shortly after they are created, until they go through a software approval program that unblocks them. Within 30 minutes of being notified this website was blocked, DOA circumvented the software and immediately made the website accessible,"
The Capitol building wifi network blocks all outside access requests unless it is on a whitelist.
Once theblock was notice it took them 30 minutes to adjust settings to allow it. I don't agree with thatmethod but it is better for important networks.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
With how much this story is getting passed around, you'd almost think this site was temporarily blocked as a publicity stunt.
But that's almost as crazy as the theory from the article: that this particular pro-union site, out of god knows how many, was purposefully blocked because they thought that'd make everyone go home. That it wouldn't just give the protesters another talking point.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
This is not really a story.
Apparently they auto-block websites, using whitelists only. So this new website comes online and its blocked. If they unblock it per their normal procedure, I see no issue.
(and i say this as someone who is against the limitations on the collective bargaining process)
"Maybe they should start looking at all the wasted funds that are sent to the Federals each and every day"
States dont send money to the federal government, they receive an inordanant amount from the federal government. Budget bill passed in the house, if it goes through, which it will not, will devastate State budgets.
Clinton was complaining about shutting off the internet in Egypt, et al.
et al. isn't a smart-sounding synonym for etc.
Actually it works here, since it's just Latin for "and others". It mere convention that we tend to use it almost exclusively for group authorship in English.
The only substantial difference with etc. is that the latter denotes that you know who or what the others are.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
But surely you have defined and appropriate channels for contacting a Union rep that don't rely on using someone else's internet access.
Nothing was blocked based on content, so that seems a tad pointless.
Never trust the /. summary. This was the capitol's public wi-fi, not just for workers.
STATE workers aren't using wireless "guest" APs to conduct their business. Although the whitelisting issue has discussed in other comments, your assumption that this situation only involed state workers so that the blocking was perfectly OK is deeply flawed. Guest internet access may not be a right, but censoring political content on a government sponsored guest network would still be a first amendment violation.
It's not democracy, it's bureaucracy.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
You're displaying the common geek rush-to-arms that a potential etymology defines acceptable meaning. English is defined, if at all, by how she is commonly used and understood.
et al. is usually used to mean et alii (in the sense "and the other men/people") or et aliae (in the sense "and the other women"). Though you'll even find dictionaries suggesting that et alia could be the full form, used to refer to groups of both genders, this is nonsense - such a group is considered masculine. Poster was looking for et cetera, meaning "and the other things" (countries, Clinton's complaints, whatever - the ambiguity illustrates why it's not just lazy to have a list of only one item).
I guess he could retort that he was abbreviating et alibi, but the "place" is that sense is not commonly understood to be geographical.
It is a first amendment issue because they weren't blocking all political sites, only the one they disagreed with. I work for the government, where we have pretty heavy internet filtering. One day I couldn't access the left-leaning HuffingtonPost, but the right-leaning Drudge Report was still accessible. I reported this and access was immediately granted to the Huffingtonpost again. Our internet usage is monitored, and, while we are allowed to take short breaks to surf the net, if we abuse that it gets recorded and we get in trouble.
So yes, blocking a Pro-Union website while still allowing employees to access RushLimbaugh.com is a pretty significant violation of first amendment rights. Especially when it's being done with taxpayer money on government property.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
I find the "Democracy" cries from the left (and often from the right as well) a tad hollow. What they seem to cry is "Democracy when we're in power". We just had elections, and the Conservative Right won power, democratically, under the promise of doing exactly this thing. So Democracy is working just fine. You may not like it, but that is besides the point. Losers usually don't like losing.
And wasn't it the (D) party that blamed the shutdown of the government on the (R) party for doing the exact same thing they are doing now; weren't they the ones crying how evil the (R)s were for causing a shut down of the government? Let me get this right ... if (R) shut down the government it is because they are evil, and if the (D) shut down the government it is because the (R) are evil. Is that how it works?
Mind you, I'm not either (D) or (R) and I clearly see the hypocrisy on both sides. However the (D) are acting like little babies here, and taking the ball and running home because they don't like how the game is being played. Grow up.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They're not your damn ISP.
No, they're the fucking state government, which gives them less of a right to block sites.
Who even cares if one particular employer blocks one particular website?
If they were blocking it for employees, that would be one thing. They were blocking the site on the guest network for the capitol, which is intended for public use.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
We just had elections, and the Conservative Right won power, democratically, under the promise of doing exactly this thing. So Democracy is working just fine.
Wrong. The Republicans in WI won power partially under the promise of making the unions pay for their benefits. They're doing that, and the unions agreed to it. That's democracy in action. However, the GOP is also trying to make a permanent end to collective bargaining, effectively crippling public sector unions forever. There was not a hint that they would do that before the election, but now that they're in power, they're trying to cram it through. Oh, except for those unions which supported them. Those get a free pass. That's not democracy, that's corruption and cronyism. I applaud the Democrats for effectively filibustering this bill - slowing it down so that people can see it and react to it.
There have been two major polls of Wisconsin voters in the past few days, both showing growing support for the unions and diminishing support for Walker. I won't give the exact numbers here, since they were commissioned by partisan groups and therefore probably skew the results by a few points in their favor. But in both cases the unions have a 20-point favorability lead over Walker. If you take out the bias, it's probably around 12 points, which is still very significant.
So what? The question isn't "is it ever okay to limit freedom of expression." The question is "Is it okay in this instance that the government block access to a pro-union website from a public hotspot, during a large public protest, for the express purpose of stifling political debate and participation?"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Unless you are a legislative aide or representative trying to do research before voting on a bill
It should be noted that public sector union bargaining is not universal in the US.
For teachers, 35 states have mandatory collective bargaining rights, 11 states permit collective bargaining (neither mandating or prohibiting), and 5 states specifically prohibit collective bargaining of teachers.
Some states have no public sector union bargaining at all.
Virginia Code 40.1-57.2 "Prohibition against collective bargaining" says: "No state, county, municipal, or like governmental officer, agent or governing body is vested with or possesses any authority to recognize any labor union or other employee association as a bargaining agent of any public officers or employees, or to collectively bargain or enter into any collective bargaining contract with any such union or association or its agents with respect to any matter relating to them or their employment or service."
Texas has government code 617.002. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PROHIBITED. "(a) An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not enter into a collective bargaining contract with a labor organization regarding wages, hours, or conditions of employment of public employees. (b) A contract entered into in violation of Subsection (a) is void. (c) An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not recognize a labor organization as the bargaining agent for a group of public employees."
Americans have a right to publish and received published information over wifi based on our Constitutional rights to freedom of press. Public parks are always provided on a "No Warranty, No Guarantee, No Commitment, Use At Your Own Risk" basis.
Oh, wait. I think I misquoted you there.
No one has a fucking right to government provided public parks, you moron, just like no one has fucking right to government provided internet connection.
What they do have is a right that if such a thing is provided, it will be provided indiscriminately of their viewpoint.
The government does not have to provide a public park, but if it provides a public park, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
The government does not have to provide a public wifi, but if it provides a public wifi, it cannot keep people from using it to say stuff the government does not like.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
How is that raising the question? The governor has visibly demonstrated a desire to destroy unions and punish those unions that sided against him. You may have missed it but a prankster recently called the governor pretending to be a billionaire Koch brother. They made large donations to Mr. Walker, in return, Republicans just changed the law making it legal to sell off public utilities without any bids, so they can basically give away all infrastructure to the Koch brothers. Wisconsin has single party consent recording, so the prankster recorded his conversation with the governor. It was very educational. The governor is not only intent on crushing unions, he believes himself to be part of a group of people who were elected specifically to do that very thing.
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/politics&id=7975464
Let me tell you about my friend Dean, who works in the refrigerated section of the grocery store, and has for decades. He complained to management about this fellow "Phil" who had been doing some pretty disgusting stuff, but Phil was the manager's nephew. Well, Dean reported him to the union and the union got that bastard fired. Unions do not act as your fantasy anecdote suggests, sorry to burst your bubble, but we have far more problems with cronyism than with unions protecting undeserving workers. I've yet to see a single documented case of a union protecting someone who was undeserving of protection. I am guessing you will not present such evidence, just as I'm guessing your friend "Phil" isn't real.
Looking up "rubber rooms" as you suggest shows they are not so nefarious, but serve a vital purpose. Teachers accused of wrongdoing should be removed from classrooms, but not fired until such wrongdoing can be proved. That is what these "rubber rooms" are for. However, the policy was always a matter decided on by each state board of education, and is being phased out in most places: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/education/29rubber.html , yeah that is from last year.
In closing, may I suggest that if you are not being paid to spread propaganda for the ultra-wealthy, you should look into it. I hear they have hired tens of thousands of bloggers and writers to parrot the opinions of the ultra-wealthy to the public, making it seem as though there is grass roots support for said opinions. I hear it is quite lucrative, and if you already hold those same opinions, you wouldn't even be compromising any beliefs.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton