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

Wed Jul 7 06:01:11 UTC 2004

Christopher Mahan wrote:

>--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
>  
>
>>The ACLU opposes hate speech legislation on two grounds: first, it 
>>considers hate speech one of the prices a society must pay for a
>>general right to freedom of speech, and second, it believes the best
>>response to hate speech is more speech.  I happen to sympathize very strongly, or just plain agree, with both of these.  I do not think the state should limit free speech.  WHEELER, for example, has a right to say whatever anti-Semitic thing he wants to, to anyone who wants to listen.
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>The question is, do I have to listen?  Do you, do we have to
>>listen?  And, more importantly, does Wikipedia have to be a medium through which anyone spews hate speech?  I don't think so.
>>    
>>
>Incorrect. The Supreme Court has ruled (lawyers can dig the ref out)
>that restricting venue of speech is an infringement on the exercise
>of free speech. As long as a forum is public, they are allowed to
>speak.
>
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.

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.

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. But even if this principle applied to speech on 
Wikipedia, I highly doubt it would cover anything resembling hate-speech.

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. 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.

>>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.

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.

--Michael Snow
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040706/26a497e6/attachment.htm 