What's the worst-case scenario for us to be concerned about, if these are
upheld?
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 1:12?PM Franziska Putz <fputz@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I’m Ziski from the Global Advocacy team. I’d like to draw your attention
> to important hearings happening this week at the United States Supreme
> Court.
>
> The hearings on two cases that will be crucial for Wikimedia have just
> started: NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. Both cases
> are challenges to state laws in Texas and Florida, which impact content
> moderation on social media websites. You may recall that back in December,
> the Foundation issued a "friend of the court
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae>" brief urging the Justices
> to strike down these laws, explaining that they pose a serious threat to
> projects like Wikipedia. You can read about our position on Diff, in our
> <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/12/07/texas-and-florida-laws-are-unconstitutional-and-threaten-volunteer-editors-right-to-edit-wikipedia/>press
> release
> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/12/07/wikimedia-foundation-calls-on-us-supreme-court-to-strike-laws-that-threaten-wikipedia/>,
> and in the
> <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/12/07/texas-and-florida-laws-are-unconstitutional-and-threaten-volunteer-editors-right-to-edit-wikipedia/>
> brief
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-555/292649/20231207143139081_22-277%2022-555%20ac%20Wikimedia%20Foundation.pdf>
> itself.
> <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/12/07/texas-and-florida-laws-are-unconstitutional-and-threaten-volunteer-editors-right-to-edit-wikipedia/>
>
>
> The US Supreme Court is hearing the cases now, and we are there in person
> talking to stakeholders and observing the proceedings. We expect the Court
> to rule this year and will be providing updates as we know more.
>
> The problem: As they are written, these laws prohibit website operators
> from banning users or removing speech and would generally risk Wikipedia’s
> volunteer-led systems of content moderation. That’s because these laws were
> designed to prevent social media platforms from engaging in politically
> motivated content moderation, but were drafted so broadly that they would
> also impact Wikipedia. The case is also important beyond the impact it
> might have on our projects. It represents a scenario that is part of a
> trend globally, where governments introduce legislation to address harms
> from big tech actors, yet Wikimedia ends up as the dolphin inadvertently
> caught in the net. This is one reason that WMF is working alongside
> affiliates to raise awareness about how Wikimedia’s model of community-led
> content governance works and why it is important to protect.
>
> What to watch for: We will be monitoring these developments closely in
> the United States, with an eye to possible ripple effects in other
> countries.
>
> We will provide updates on how the Court rules later this year. In the
> meantime, please reach out with any questions or comments and look at the resources
> we’re compiling on how to explain the Wikimedia model
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Advocacy/Resources> to
> policymakers.
>
> All the best,
>
> Ziski
>
> Franziska Putz (she/her)
>
> Senior Movement Advocacy Manager
>
> Global Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Fputz@wikimedia.org
>
> UTC Timezone
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/U57W4G4CPENFOXQVIQDKPZ47OUEYZ5CH/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
upheld?
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 1:12?PM Franziska Putz <fputz@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I’m Ziski from the Global Advocacy team. I’d like to draw your attention
> to important hearings happening this week at the United States Supreme
> Court.
>
> The hearings on two cases that will be crucial for Wikimedia have just
> started: NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. Both cases
> are challenges to state laws in Texas and Florida, which impact content
> moderation on social media websites. You may recall that back in December,
> the Foundation issued a "friend of the court
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae>" brief urging the Justices
> to strike down these laws, explaining that they pose a serious threat to
> projects like Wikipedia. You can read about our position on Diff, in our
> <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/12/07/texas-and-florida-laws-are-unconstitutional-and-threaten-volunteer-editors-right-to-edit-wikipedia/>press
> release
> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2023/12/07/wikimedia-foundation-calls-on-us-supreme-court-to-strike-laws-that-threaten-wikipedia/>,
> and in the
> <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/12/07/texas-and-florida-laws-are-unconstitutional-and-threaten-volunteer-editors-right-to-edit-wikipedia/>
> brief
> <https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-555/292649/20231207143139081_22-277%2022-555%20ac%20Wikimedia%20Foundation.pdf>
> itself.
> <https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/12/07/texas-and-florida-laws-are-unconstitutional-and-threaten-volunteer-editors-right-to-edit-wikipedia/>
>
>
> The US Supreme Court is hearing the cases now, and we are there in person
> talking to stakeholders and observing the proceedings. We expect the Court
> to rule this year and will be providing updates as we know more.
>
> The problem: As they are written, these laws prohibit website operators
> from banning users or removing speech and would generally risk Wikipedia’s
> volunteer-led systems of content moderation. That’s because these laws were
> designed to prevent social media platforms from engaging in politically
> motivated content moderation, but were drafted so broadly that they would
> also impact Wikipedia. The case is also important beyond the impact it
> might have on our projects. It represents a scenario that is part of a
> trend globally, where governments introduce legislation to address harms
> from big tech actors, yet Wikimedia ends up as the dolphin inadvertently
> caught in the net. This is one reason that WMF is working alongside
> affiliates to raise awareness about how Wikimedia’s model of community-led
> content governance works and why it is important to protect.
>
> What to watch for: We will be monitoring these developments closely in
> the United States, with an eye to possible ripple effects in other
> countries.
>
> We will provide updates on how the Court rules later this year. In the
> meantime, please reach out with any questions or comments and look at the resources
> we’re compiling on how to explain the Wikimedia model
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Advocacy/Resources> to
> policymakers.
>
> All the best,
>
> Ziski
>
> Franziska Putz (she/her)
>
> Senior Movement Advocacy Manager
>
> Global Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Fputz@wikimedia.org
>
> UTC Timezone
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/U57W4G4CPENFOXQVIQDKPZ47OUEYZ5CH/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266