Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For example, people have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on Wikipedia.
Actually they do. Others have a right to remove such advertising. They do not have a right to prohibit others from removing the advertising.
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.
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.
--Michael Snow
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
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.
Discussion open.
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.
Ok.
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.
Granted, in a purely legal sense, the W is a private not-for-profit organization.
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.
To a degree.
But even if this principle applied to speech on Wikipedia, I highly doubt it would cover anything resembling hate-speech.
You're probably right.
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.
Likewise the government can close a public park temporarily for "renovation" or permanently for "budget considerations".
It's also not legally obligated to be successful and build an international encyclopedia.
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.
There is one more concept to consider: the Wiki. A wiki is, by its very nature, a cyber-place where speech is unusally unrestricted. This creates a precedence (however tenuous) of allowing near-unfettered speech. This concept is one of the reasons behind this project's successes, and dear to many a contributor's heart. Indeed, it is one of the safeties that the body of work will be balanced, since all people, from all walks of life, with differing opinions and points of view, experiences, and levels of knowledge can participate in the process.
Should WP become an exclusive card-carrying members-only club, I contend that it would fail rather quickly.
For example, people have a right to advertise but we do not allow
advertisements on Wikipedia.
Actually they do. Others have a right to remove such advertising. They do not have a right to prohibit others from removing the advertising.
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.
It is not illegal to post commercial speech on wikipedia. You cannot call the police, sue for damages, etc. Since no legislation exists, it is retained as a right by the People.
There is no mandate from Jimbo that commercial speech will never be used on W. It has even been tried by him. I will refer you to the Amazon.com book referral program that was tried earlier this year. It was discontinued partly because of feedback from users, and partly from lack of financial interest.
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.
Likewise there are laws governing speech in public places, that, under extreme circumstances, may be used to remove certain individuals from the population. (Try yelling "There's a bomb!" in the street in front of an airport in the US.)
While I agree that conceptually editing W is a priviledge, it is and has been so widely granted to all that it would be possible to argue that to restrict an individual's right from participation would unfairly restrict their ability to contribute to a body of knowledge that is meant to benefit mankind, assuming that this individual had maintained a civil demeanor. Past conduct has demonstrated indeed demonstrates that barring uncivility, all people are allowed access to view and edit the W, as long as they agree to the terms of the GFDL and respect the work of other contributors.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Michael Snow wrote:
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.
That's an unduly narrow definition of "public forum" and appears contrary to the generally held impression of that term. Your particular definition should be backed up with a source. It is more common to think of that expression as a space (including a virtual one) where members of the general public can come to express their views, and hear the views of others. In some jurisdictions a privat company wanting a zoning change can be required to sponsor a public forum at its own expense. This does not mean that public fora are completely without rules; they're often needed to keep a meeting from descending into complete chaos.
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.
Adequately defining advertising is much easier than defining hate speech or NPOV. The borderlands of these two can be very broad, but we still need to look at it on a case by case basis. We can list general characteristics of hate speech that need to be considered, but the presence of one or two of these characteristics need not be conclusive proof that hat speech is being practised.
Holocaust denial has been regarded as a characteristic of anti-semitism, but one must still have regard to the context.
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.
We have all heard this stale distinction before in many different circumstances. It seldom rises above the status of word play, and does not assist us in finding a constructive solution. There likely would be broad general support for banning hate speech, and that's why your argument is useless. The problem is in defining what we mean.
Ec