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(a)wikimedia.org
UTC Timezone