The Foundation supports challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that jeopardize Wikipedia’s community-led governance model and the right to freedom of expression.

An amicus brief, also known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief, is a document filed by individuals or organizations who are not part of a lawsuit, but who have an interest in the outcome of the case and want to raise awareness about their concerns. The Wikimedia Foundation’s amicus brief calls upon the Supreme Court to strike down laws passed in 2021 by Texas and Florida state legislatures. Texas House Bill 20 and Florida Senate Bill 7072 prohibit website operators from banning users or removing speech and content based on the viewpoints and opinions of the users in question.

“These laws expose residents of Florida and Texas who edit Wikipedia to lawsuits by people who disagree with their work,” said Stephen LaPorte, General Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. “For over twenty years, a community of volunteers from around the world have designed, debated, and deployed a range of content moderation policies to ensure the information on Wikipedia is reliable and neutral. We urge the Supreme Court to rule in favor of NetChoice to protect Wikipedia’s unique model of community-led governance, as well as the free expression rights of the encyclopedia’s dedicated editors.”

“The quality of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia depends entirely on the ability of volunteers to develop and enforce nuanced rules for well-sourced, encyclopedic content,” said Rebecca MacKinnon, Vice President of Global Advocacy at the Wikimedia Foundation. “Without the discretion to make editorial decisions in line with established policies around verifiability and neutrality, Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with opinions, conspiracies, and irrelevant information that would jeopardize the project’s reason for existing.”

  • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Is this a US thing I’m too French to understand?

    In a functioning country, minority ethnic groups are regular citizens without a special status and don’t have more legitimacy to be autonomous than other people. Ethnic groups don’t control land; governments do. Otherwise, it’s called an ethnostate and it’s not a good thing.

    • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In a functioning country, minority ethnic groups are regular citizens without a special status

      Would it be correct to say that you don’t care for affirmative action?

      • Something Burger 🍔@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It can be useful to improve the condition of minorities, but it is not a special status like First Nations or even an autonomous government.

    • Literati@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Is this a US thing I’m too French to understand?

      I’d say likely yes to this. It’s much easier to centrally govern a more geographically dense and homogeneous country.

      In the US we have strong localized government (city/county, state) and the more sweeping Federal government.

      And they do submit to central government, that’s exactly what the discussion in this article is about- will the central court decide to strike down their local laws?

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Frérot, la France a des territoires d’outre-mer qui votent leurs propres lois et ont leur propre monnaie.

      Ensuite tu dois connaître trop peu de ta propre histoire pour dire que les états fédéraux sont des “ethnostates”. La France depuis Louis XIV a systématiquement réprimé, violemment, les langues et les cultures non-Parisiennes sur son territoire. L’EN n’enseigne que le Français, et les enfants qui y parlaient une autre langue étaient frappés jusqu’à ce qu’ils arrêtent.

      Les Parisiens ont éradiqué les autres cultures de France, et je ne vois pas en quoi c’est plus légitime et moins problématique que de laisser des régions avec une langue et une culture différente s’auto-administrer pour prendre en compte leur différence.

    • Sternout@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Federalism works pretty well in Germany too. Why would you want one central government have decide what happens in your region far away from the capital?

        • Sternout@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          if each territory has its own laws?

          This is not the case.

          Most of the laws are on a national level.

        • btp@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Checks and balances. Plus, the U.S. is a very large country, with a large population that has their own priorities and values. Local municipalities can also vary largely within state governments. The federal system allows these communities to self-determine, while also enacting a foundation of basic rights and government function.