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.”

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

    • KmlSlmk64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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?

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

            • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

        • KmlSlmk64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          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?

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.