<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
Christopher Mahan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040706165837.D8BFE1AC02F5@mail.wikimedia.org">
<pre wrap="">--- "steven l. rubenstein" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rubenste@ohiou.edu"><rubenste@ohiou.edu></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The ACLU opposes hate speech legislation on two grounds: first, it
considers hate speech one of the prices a society must pay for a
general right to freedom of speech, and second, it believes the best
response to hate speech is more speech. I happen to sympathize very strongly, or just plain agree, with both of these. I do not think the state should limit free speech. WHEELER, for example, has a right to say whatever anti-Semitic thing he wants to, to anyone who wants to listen.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The question is, do I have to listen? Do you, do we have to
listen? And, more importantly, does Wikipedia have to be a medium through which anyone spews hate speech? I don't think so.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Incorrect. The Supreme Court has ruled (lawyers can dig the ref out)
that restricting venue of speech is an infringement on the exercise
of free speech. As long as a forum is public, they are allowed to
speak.</pre>
</blockquote>
Chris made a passing argument earlier that Wikipedia is legally a
public forum and therefore required to allow freedom of speech under
the First Amendment. Since he repeats the argument here, I felt a
rebuttal was necessary. Apologies in advance for focusing on US law and
disregarding relevant laws elsewhere.<br>
<br>
The legal concept of a "public forum" applies specifically to
government property. In particular, it covers property like public
streets, sidewalks, and parks that have traditionally been used for
civic assembly and discussion. Wikipedia as a website is operated by a
private nonprofit organization, and Wikipedia as a community is a
collection of private individuals. The public can participate, and
nearly all activity happens "in public", but none of that makes this a
public forum in a legal sense, because it's not owned by the public.<br>
<br>
The law in some states, notably California, protects a certain amount
of free speech on some private property, specifically the ability to
petition or solicit individuals in shopping centers that are open to
the general public. Maybe this is what gave Chris the idea that
Wikipedia is a public forum. But even if this principle applied to
speech on Wikipedia, I highly doubt it would cover anything resembling
hate-speech.<br>
<br>
Wikipedia currently is somewhat of a forum for speech, but it's not
legally obligated to provide a forum, or to remain open to the public,
or to permit unrestricted free speech. The website could shut down
tomorrow, or convert to read-only, thus stopping all speech. To the
extent that anyone has a "right to free speech" here, it consists of
the rights licensed to everyone under the GFDL, in conjunction with the
ability to fork the content.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040706165837.D8BFE1AC02F5@mail.wikimedia.org">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For example, people have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on Wikipedia.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Actually they do. Others have a right to remove such advertising.
They do not have a right to prohibit others from removing the
advertising.</pre>
</blockquote>
Please do not confuse having the ability to do something on Wikipedia
with having the right to do it. Wikipedia has every right to prohibit
advertising, or removal of advertising, depending on what policy the
Wikipedia community wants to follow with respect to advertising. Same
goes for hate-speech. The question is about what policy we want, and
how to define it.<br>
<br>
Just a general reminder: editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right.
The privilege is granted liberally, but it can be restricted or taken
away, though that will usually happen only in extreme circumstances.<br>
<br>
--Michael Snow
</body>
</html>