On 8 Feb 2006 at 17:14, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Like "This user smokes weed"?
In some states, this is legal if it is for medical purposes.
Also, perhaps the user with that statement on his page in fact only smokes weed while he is in other countries where it is allowed, such as the Netherlands.
On 2/9/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
Also, perhaps the user with that statement on his page in fact only smokes weed while he is in other countries where it is allowed, such as the Netherlands.
One might note also that "weed" is a euphemism which may mean marajiuana, but other weeds have been smoked historically and many are quite legal ;)
-Matt
On 2/10/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 at 17:14, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Like "This user smokes weed"?
In some states, this is legal if it is for medical purposes.
Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Like "This user smokes weed"?
In some states, this is legal if it is for medical purposes.
Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?
Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch Sent: Friday, 10 February 2006 14:56
Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?
Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.
Is this likely to happen again?
Pete, whistling dixie
Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.
Is this likely to happen again?
Pete, whistling dixie
I am forced to say no; to say otherwise is hate speech.
On 2/10/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
(I wrote:)
Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?
Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.
Um, what?
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 04:01 +0000, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/10/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
(I wrote:)
Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?
Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.
Um, what?
I believe what he's getting at is the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation's database servers all reside in St. Petersburg, and the content on them is thus subject to United States and Florida law.
On 2/10/06, Christopher Larberg christopherlarberg@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 04:01 +0000, Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/10/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
(I wrote:)
Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?
Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.
Um, what?
I believe what he's getting at is the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation's database servers all reside in St. Petersburg, and the content on them is thus subject to United States and Florida law.
My suggestion pertained to a discussion of whether it was against the law to advocate the use of illegal drugs in a userpage or userbox. It depends more the jurisdiction in which the person making the statement resides at the time, than on the location of the server that carries the statement.
I believe what he's getting at is the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation's database servers all reside in St. Petersburg, and the content on them is thus subject to United States and Florida law.
My own opinion that a discussion of what it is _legal_ in the United States to advocate on userpages doesn't get us very far at all, since in most regards, the US has the strongest protection for freedom of speech in the world.
It's perfectly legal to do a lot of things that still amount to preposterous trolling that can and should cause us to ask someone to either knock off or leave the community.
We don't need to be tyrants about people's userpages. We don't need extensive rules and regulations about it. But at the same time we do need to remind people that, hey, this isn't a radical free speech zone, and really, trolling others by writing the most outrageous things is really pointless behavior.
--Jimbo
"Jimmy Wales" wrote
My own opinion that a discussion of what it is _legal_ in the United States to advocate on userpages doesn't get us very far at all, since in most regards, the US has the strongest protection for freedom of speech in the world.
Or, are _we_ more worried about incitement to serial bigamy, or carefully-constructed hate speech?
Charles