Geoff Burling wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us on the list are not Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the "Ugly American".
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the same world as the rest of us.
Dude, get the chip off your shoulder already.
Didn't you write in another email in this same thread
It would be advisable for the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid establishing a legal presence within the jurisdiction of countries which lack adequate protections for free speech, however.
To rephrase an old saying about Computer Operating systems, legal protection of free speech in all countries suck, they just suck in different ways. (And then some countries don't bother with offering any protection, which sucks even more.) I think it's fair to say that the U.S. has done a better job in the past of protecting free speech than it does now; & I hope that it does a better job of it in the future. That being said, we US citizens are not in the position at the moment to start throwing stones.
I considered a direct response to Kelly, but the comment was so glib, facile and out-of-character that doing so would have served no useful purpose. On top of that, Anthony, who had inspired my outburst, already appeared to grasp where I was coming from.
Each of us is ultimately responsible for safeguarding his own free speech, even in a country where the trappings of free speech are superb. Perhaps more so when those trappings give an illusion of safety. Free speech when exercised at an unfortunate place and time can be too easily characterised as conspiracy.
Depending solely on the legal protection provided for free speech in a single country is poor strategy. In the freest country that can change with frightening rapidity. For the moment the protection provided elsewhere may appear inferior, but in certain times of crisis that will be better than nothing.
Ec