[Wikimedia-l] Updated Terms of Use

[Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com]

On May 3, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 1, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Richard, you removed some relevant language:
>>> 
>>> "Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other
>>> users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to
>>> liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users, *you
>>> may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include:
>>> [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable
>>> law."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in
>>> some way "anti-freedom" is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult
>>> to craft language to do that well.
>>> 
>>> ~Nathan
>> 
>> Would you like an opportunity to phrase that language in a sense that does
>> not suggest Wikimedia is in support of laws that are "anti-freedom"?
>> 
>> -- 
>> --
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>> 
>> 
> 
> It seems to be that the point of this section is that WMF does not condone users to use the sites in a fashion which breaks their local laws; therefore WMF itself may not be procesuted for conspiracy nor will WMF be liable civilly to users who were prosecuted locally and wish to recieve compensation.  If the WMF did not disavow an intention to promote locally illegal things (like Germans printing Swatika images found on Commons), they would be open to liability that would result money going to lawyers.  Really very, very few countries have a right to free speech as strong as the US, including countries were WMF actually has significant assets.  China is not the issue here. Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it, is neither wise nor ethical.
> 
> 

Which is all slightly different from WMF actually making technically impossible to circumvent local anti-freedom laws. 

BirgitteSB