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.”

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • AtmaJnana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        “If you don’t like being bombed, get your neighbors to stop supporting Hamas.”

        Collective punishment.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

            • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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.