Wikimedia Foundation calls on US Supreme Court to strike laws that threaten Wikipedia
Wikimedia Foundation calls on US Supreme Court to strike laws that threaten Wikipedia
The Foundation supports challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that jeopardize Wikipedia's community-led governance model and the right to freedom of expression.
The Foundation supports challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that jeopardize Wikipedia's community-led governance model and the right to freedom of expression.
An amicus brief, also known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief, is a document filed by individuals or organizations who are not part of a lawsuit, but who have an interest in the outcome of the case and want to raise awareness about their concerns. The Wikimedia Foundation’s amicus brief calls upon the Supreme Court to strike down laws passed in 2021 by Texas and Florida state legislatures. Texas House Bill 20 and Florida Senate Bill 7072 prohibit website operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question.
“These laws expose residents of Florida and Texas who edit Wikipedia to lawsuits by people who disagree with their work,” said Stephen LaPorte, General Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. “For over twenty years, a community of volunteers from around the world have designed, debated, and deployed a range of content moderation policies to ensure the information on Wikipedia is reliable and neutral. We urge the Supreme Court to rule in favor of NetChoice to protect Wikipedia’s unique model of community-led governance, as well as the free expression rights of the encyclopedia’s dedicated editors.”
“The quality of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia depends entirely on the ability of volunteers to develop and enforce nuanced rules for well-sourced, encyclopedic content,” said Rebecca MacKinnon, Vice President of Global Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation. “Without the discretion to make editorial decisions in line with established policies around verifiability and neutrality, Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with opinions, conspiracies, and irrelevant information that would jeopardize the project’s reason for existing.”
You're viewing a single thread.
Can Wikipedia simply not allow users from Texas or Florida? I.e. not operate in that jurisdiction?
Yes, but that kinda defeats the point of an open knowledge library for all. This is a problem that should be fixed with legislation and not artificial blocking. We shouldn't punish the unfortunate for being stuck with the stupid.
We shouldn't punish the unfortunate for being stuck with the stupid.
I'm a Texan and over 7 mil didn't vote in the last gubernatorial election. Block us. It'll piss off high school and college students royally and they're the blocks we need voting.
Cheers for this (and my condolences), as much as it sucks to block Texas, it'd be much worse to let Texas ruin Wikipedia for the rest of the world.
History has taught us restricting access to knowledge never goes well. It will piss some people off, sure. Enough to make a difference? Can't say, most people are indifferent. As long as they get AN answer, that's all they care about. Not necessarily the correct one.
I feel like they should see the consequences of their actions. The politicians might learn that the public won’t put up with this shit, rather than have it forced upon them by a higher court so they can continue to play the victim card.
Not everyone in Florida and Texas voted for the fascists and not everyone who wanted to vote against them were able to.
Punishing those who are not complicit is injust, not to mention excellent campaign fodder for the fascists.
I understand your point. My intention isn’t so much to “punish” as to have them see the consequences of their policies. Which should drive a sane voting public against them once they really see first hand the consequences. If SCOTUS or someone hands down a ruling to counter them, then they just play the victim card, and their supporters are emboldened.
Again, not all sane Texans and Floridians are afforded the rights and opportunities needed to vote or otherwise get their voice heard.
If anything, geoblocking those states would only serve to deprive those not savvy enough to deploy a VPN and that's a group that's already more likely to be fooled by the demagogues and dishonest media outlets that would paint Wikipedia as the villains.
In other words, geoblocking the fascist-occupied territories would only serve to harden the support of the fascists while inconveniencing many and accomplishing nothing positive.
I agree 💯 that there needs to be consequences for the tyrannical actions of fascists, but geoblocking isn't it.
Honestly... I get your point and I know people in Texas that don't agree with Texas politics. However, the largest party in the county is the party of "I don't vote." If you actually manage to wake up 10%... 20%... 30%... of those people, plus all the Republican voters that didn't want it, plus all the Democrats that didn't want it and/or got lazy with their state votes... Well we might actually see major change in representation from Texas.
"If you don't like being bombed, get your neighbors to stop supporting Hamas."
Collective punishment.
That is an offensive comparison. I'm not touching that, there's no "winning" in the discussion you've set up for either of us.
Lol. LMAO, even.
the largest party in the county is the party of "I don't vote." If you actually manage to wake up 10%... 20%... 30%... of those people
Which part of "not able to" don't you get? Calling disenfranchised people asleep is victim blaming that doesn't give them the right and ability to vote back.
Oh bull shit. There are way more apathetic people that don't vote because they don't want to (because they don't think it matters or don't care) than people that are actually not able to vote.
If your "disenfranchisement" in particular boils down to "both sides ... my vote doesn't matter" I have 0 sympathy for you. It very clearly does matter.
There are way more apathetic people that don't vote because they don't want to (because they don't think it matters or don't care) than people that are actually not able to vote.
That's just factually inaccurate, even if we DID count the ideologically disenfranchised as "apathetic" as you no doubt would.
If your "disenfranchisement" in particular boils down to "both sides ... my vote doesn't matter"
It doesn't, but thanks for exposing your ignorance and bias by automatically assuming so.
I have 0 sympathy
Really? And here I thought you were coming off SUPER sympathetic! 🙄
It very clearly does matter.
That's what I'M saying, jackass! It might surprise you, since you reflexively defend the party that talks a big game about defending the right to vote and then does fuckall, but there are those of us who actually DO care about whether it's possible (hell, why not go so far as easy, like most actually democratic countries do?) for people to do what is their right as citizens of a supposed democracy.
Really? And here I thought you were coming off SUPER sympathetic! 🙄
I'm sympathetic to people who voted for the right policies but still live there. Not to the people who can vote but choose not to exercise their rights and then complain about how things are going.
In any case, I think you're rude and full of shit.
people who can vote but choose not to
Are still not the people I'm talking about. Retire that strawman, please.
In any case, I think you're rude and full of shit.
Well you're half right. I'm being rude on purpose because your moronic take based on prejudice and ignoring the faults of your "teams" DESERVES that and more. Also, pretty hypocritical to complain about me being rude in the same sentence as calling me full of shit 🙄
Pro tip: the one who's full of shit is usually the one who keeps repeating the same strawman over and over after the other has explained thoroughly and repeatedly that it's not what they're saying.
In conclusion: you're wrong and we're done here. Have the day you deserve.
What would happen, if they ignored the laws and did not geoblock Texas and Florida, just say they don't operate there, but not restrict the users and still operate the way they operated until now?
Fines I would assume. Lawsuits even.
How does that work?
Like, let's say I'm born in Oregon, I live my whole life in Oregon, I get to vote for national representative and Oregon representatives. I set up a server in Oregon, my server responds to electronic requests that it receives from an Oregon company which I connect to with a wire that goes through Oregon.
Then I get sued for breaking Texas laws. At what point did I become subject to Texas law?
At best, at best, you could say that I'm doing "interstate commerce" which is governed by the federal government, not state law.
If I remember correctly, at least some of Wikipedia's servers are in Florida. So Florida would definitely be able to take action against them.
But, like when they would say in their EULA, that people from Texas and Florida are not allowed, then by using the service would be breaking of EULA and the wikipedia foundation could theoretically say that they're not operating there and it's the users fault. Like could someone still sue them then?
You can't just put illegal discrimination in your EULA and expect it to be legally binding for the user. Also, you don't even have to sign a EULA to use Wikipedia. It's an open dictionary, not a proprietary app from a for-profit company.
I don’t believe “location you currently are” is a protected class.
True, but I'm pretty sure collective punishment is illegal or at least frowned upon in most countries..
Regardless of legality, it would go against the whole mission statement of being the world's largest freely available encyclopedia to just start geoblocking everyone from states with ridiculous laws..
This isn’t “punishment” in the eyes of the law. There’s really nothing preventing a site from banning an entire state, it’s happened before, it’ll happen again the way these laws are going.
But yeah, in the specific case of Wikipedia I doubt they’ll do it unless things get pushed to the absolutely limit of what they can handle.
Why can't you restrict usage if you don't comply with local laws? Why can companies like Facebook restrict usage of their new features like Threads in the EU then? Or some US news network restricting access from the EU?
Why can companies like Facebook restrict usage of their new features like Threads in the EU then?
They can't. The EU is constantly fining them and suing them for not complying with EU law.
some US news network restricting access from the EU?
The EU law says that they can't force cookies on EU residents. It doesn't say that they can't accomplish that by geoblocking.
As for Wikipedia, maybe they're legally allowed to block all of Texas and Florida, maybe they're not.
Regardless, such a move would be the opposite of the mission and function of Wikipedia: to be a free source for unbiased information available to everyone.
Yes, but that kinda defeats the point of an open knowledge library for all.
Not if they are just blocking editors/authors, not regular viewers.
That would conflict with the proposed law. They want to be able to write what they want, not see what already exists.