[WikiEN-l] Public forum (Was WHEELER's anti-Semitism)

[Christopher Mahan]

--- Michael Snow <wikipedia at 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 at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at 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