[WikiEN-l] Re: WHEELER's anti-Semitism

[Michael Snow]

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> 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.

I used a legal definition of public forum because Chris used the term in 
his argument that US constitutional law guarantees a right to freedom of 
speech on Wikipedia. That makes the legal definition the appropriate one 
to use in considering whether Wikipedia is a public forum. If you would 
like some references, I would recommend starting with Hague v. CIO, 307 
U.S. 496 (1939), which is the seminal Supreme Court case dealing with 
the concept of a public forum. There are also plenty of cases since then 
about the extent to which speech in public fora can be restricted or 
regulated, and this is the sense in which they generally use the term 
"public forum".

> 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.

I have no problem with saying that Wikipedia is a public forum in the 
sense that it is a space that allows public expression. Definitions of 
terms often vary with how they are used, and that definition would be 
fine for general discourse. But when people use a term in a technical 
setting, they have to be prepared to accept the technical definition 
when it's a term of art in that particular field.

>> 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. 

I'm not sure what argument you think I was making. I was responding to 
an argument that freedom of speech on Wikipedia is a legally protected 
right. Hence much of my discussion focused on "rights" in the legal 
sense. Just because I rejected this argument, it does not follow that I 
am advocating any particular policy with respect to speech, or 
hate-speech in particular. I don't doubt you've heard the cliché many 
times, but not everyone has, and it bears repeating when people make 
claims that they have a "legal right" to do anything here.

As for finding a constructive solution to the problem of hate-speech, I 
think it *is* helpful to rebut erroneous arguments that such speech is 
legally protected. I agree with you that we also need an adequate 
definition in order to have any kind of workable policy.

--Michael Snow