On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Stephen LaPorte slaporte@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:
The problem is more how we should participate, rather than whether. Is the advocacy campaign proposing specific actions, or leaving it to the imaginations of supporters?
Here is a page that others may use next week: http://www.fixthecfaa.com/
Is that an answer to Amgine's question?
The proposed amendments would open editors to felony charges involving decades of possible jail time for using published web sources to which they have legitimate access if a prosecutor decides that such use on Foundation projects isn't explicitly allowed by the site's terms of service. This is far worse for the editor community than simply having to remove URLs on request as SOPA or PIPA would have required if they had passed, and would likely expose even project readers to the same criminal liability for clicking on links to sources without terms explicitly allowing such use.
The Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline explicitly contemplates the use of banner space to promote a political cause. If this CFAA amendment proposal doesn't rise to the level justifying such an action, then what would?