Charles Podles wrote:
An anonymous user posted the following on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy :
== Blocking anonymizer's proxies is unconstitutional ==
*'''The right to anonymous free speech is protected by the 1st amendment of the US constitution.'''
"Congress shall make no law..."
Unless I missed something, we still aren't Congress.
*'''Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas and the practice of religious belief without fear of intimidation or public retaliation.'''
This is certainly true enough, and something that we ought to respect as much as we feasibly can.
I kindly request Wikipedia editors to re-open the debate about the right of the people to contribute to Wikipedia while protecting their rights to free speech, and to curb sysop powers to utilize blocking policies.
That's a reasonable request. Please let's not get lost in a very confused constitutional claim, though.
When I visited the EFF in San Francisco last week, I met with the people working on Tor, their anonymous browsing project. They were (slightly) sympathetic to our concerns and open to ideas.
--Jimbo