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.”
Deceptichum@kbin.social 11 months ago
What the absolute fuck America.
kautau@lemmy.world 11 months ago
“We want small government!”
“But also big government in cases where our hate speech might be at stake!”
NateNate60@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Texas and Florida are pretty well-known as the shitholes of America. Run by populist idiots who cater to the uninformed and gullible voter. I’m sure there are places like that in every country.
SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 11 months ago
Places like that in other countries usually don’t have as much power as US States do. Other countries are better designed and don’t have practically independent sub-countries inside them with their own laws.
Drusas@kbin.social 11 months ago
Feels like we're in a death spiral.
Drunemeton@lemmy.world 11 months ago
“Please keep your hands inside the ride at all times.”
nutsack@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The wording of this law makes no sense to me
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
You’re catching on!
Rolder@reddthat.com 11 months ago
How would it work if, say, a website run out of California or even another country violated this law
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 11 months ago
Pretty much the same way that Europe’s GDPR works: they fine the business operations within the covered jurisdiction. If you don’t do business in their jurisdiction, you are perfectly free to tell them to shove their regulation up their ass.
Wikimedia collects donations from Texans. If these laws survive a legal challenge, Wikimedia would either have to stop collecting donations from Texas or comply with Texas law.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 11 months ago
They want to normalize calls for executing undesirables
thbb@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Does this means we can invade truth social or reddit/conservative and they won’t be allowed to ban their contradictory?
qaz@lemmy.world 11 months ago
But what does this even mean? Would banning someone because they are of the opinion the holocaust didn’t happen illegal?