[Foundation-l] On the blocking of anonymous proxies

[Andre Engels]

Wikipedia is in no way under an obligation to allow anyone to speak
out on their pages, just like a publisher is not under an obligation
to publish your book. I very much am opposed against blocking
anonymous proxies on sight (at least, beyond what is necessary to stop
actual ongoing vandalism), but there are no first amendment rights
violated.

Wikipedia is giving certain means of communication to some, in fact to
many, people. It is under no legal obligation to do so, nor to extend
this possibility in any way. We are not forbidding or disabling you or
anyone else to speak out their mind. We are just restricting who can
use OUR material to do so.

Andre Engels


On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:43:14 -0500, Charles Podles
<charles.podles at gmail.com> 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.'''
> 
> *'''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.'''
> 
> :''Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.
> Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express
> critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny
> of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill
> of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect
> unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an
> intolerant society.''
> :<small>Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,
> 1995.</small>
> 
> Some Wikipedia members (sysops) have implemented a policy to routinely
> block users that choose to post using an anonymous proxy
> ([[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Anonymous_and_open_proxies]])
> 
> These members of Wikipedia have decided to block the ability of people
> to the right of anonymity giving reasons related to the need to curb
> vandalism of articles.
> 
> These are not sufficient reasons to limit my liberties and the
> liberties of others. The WP community is strong enough to withstand
> vandalism, without resorting to these measures.
> 
> Case in point: On February 9, [[User:David.Monniaux]] blocked IP
> address 168.143.113.125 (anonymizer.com), a respected and paid service
> for anonymous browsing. This IP address was used by hundreds of WP
> users that wanted to protect their anonymity.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=168.143.113.125.
> The steps taken by David Monniaux in blocking of that IP address have
> been disputed by me.
> ([[Talk:French_legislation_against_cult_abuses#Controversy_with_an_anonymous_user]].
> 
> 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.
> 
> Copies of the above have been sent to:
> * The Electronic Privacy Information Center http://epic.org/
> * The Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
> * The American Civil Liberties Union http://aclu.org/
> 
>  --[[User:38.119.107.72|38.119.107.72]] 23:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>