Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-02-04/Special report: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Created page with '<noinclude>{{Signpost draft |title = WMF issues salvo on two fronts in war on posting in US and UK |blurb = Come and take them |Ready-for-copyedit = No |Copyedit-done = No |Final-approval = No <!--Should only be used by EiC --> }} {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/RSS description |1=<!-- LEAVE BLANK to use "<title>: <blurb>" (using title and blurb from above), or replace with a custom description for the RSS f...'
 
No edit summary
Line 29: Line 29:
https://reason.com/2023/01/17/britain-wants-to-jail-social-media-managers-who-dont-censor-to-the-governments-liking/
https://reason.com/2023/01/17/britain-wants-to-jail-social-media-managers-who-dont-censor-to-the-governments-liking/


=== Gonzales v. Google ===
===Section 230===
:See prior [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-10-31/Opinion#Section 230: a quick recap|''Signpost'' coverage]]
Blah blah blah section 230.
[https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/23/23567834/supreme-court-texas-florida-netchoice-lawsuit-order-us-government-brief The Verge] tells us "A number of internet services — including ... the Wikimedia Foundation — filed briefs last week ... encouraging the [United States Supreme Court] not to narrow its definition of [[Section 230]] [of the [[Communications Decency Act]]]." The narrow definition referred to by [[The Verge]] would uphold Texas and Florida's ability to restrict online moderation that is defined by the states as [[viewpoint discrimination]]. An argument against this is that the state laws essentially compel speech by online hosts such as Wikimedia – what [[Eugene Volokh]] writing in ''Texas Law Review'' calls [https://texaslawreview.org/the-law-of-compelled-speech/ "compelled hosting"] – which is likely a First Amendment violation. We don't know yet whether it ''is'' a violation, and this is what the Supreme Court case will sort out, maybe.

More media on the topic include [https://gizmodo.com/section-230-gonzalez-v-google-scouts-reddit-google-1850018176/slides/6 Gizmodo sorts out the views of several participants] and a number of legal scholars' opinions and analysis:
*The United States Supreme Court's [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1333.html linked list of relevant documents]
*''The Wall Street Journal'' published [https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-media-censorship-section-230-constitution-right-compelled-speech-11664572426 an op-ed] by a [[Cato Institute]] research fellow concerning Section 230 and [[compelled speech]]
*The ''Cornell Law Review'' has [https://cornelllawreview.org/2021/01/15/compelling-code-a-first-amendment-argument-against-requiring-political-neutrality-in-online-content-moderation/ an analysis] that states "requiring tech companies to maintain politically neutral content moderation algorithms is a form of compelled speech and is therefore presumptively unconstitutional under the First Amendment."

* [https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252719/20230119161248736_21-1333bsacWikimediaFoundation.pdf WMF brief]
– {{Small|[[User:Bri|B]]}}


{{highlight|ok i will write this one i guess '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)}}
{{highlight|ok i will write this one i guess '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 03:46, 3 February 2023

The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Special report

WMF issues salvo on two fronts in war on posting in US and UK

Contribute  —  
Share this
By JPxG

In two major English-speaking countries, two separate legal mechanisms are working their way through two separate processes. The first is a United States Supreme Court case regarding §230 of the Communications Decency Act, and the second is a proposed Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom "intended to improve internet safety". Both have wide-ranging implications for posters, lurkers, and everyone in between, and both have been the subject of fierce deabte.

Online Safety Bill

According to Wikipedia, the Online Safety Bill is "intended to improve internet safety" in the United Kingdom.


The WMF, and many others, have a dim view of it. For more, see this issue's special report.

Netzpolitik says ... "harmful content" ... [1] to be finished

https://reason.com/2023/01/17/britain-wants-to-jail-social-media-managers-who-dont-censor-to-the-governments-liking/

Section 230

See prior Signpost coverage

The Verge tells us "A number of internet services — including ... the Wikimedia Foundation — filed briefs last week ... encouraging the [United States Supreme Court] not to narrow its definition of Section 230 [of the Communications Decency Act]." The narrow definition referred to by The Verge would uphold Texas and Florida's ability to restrict online moderation that is defined by the states as viewpoint discrimination. An argument against this is that the state laws essentially compel speech by online hosts such as Wikimedia – what Eugene Volokh writing in Texas Law Review calls "compelled hosting" – which is likely a First Amendment violation. We don't know yet whether it is a violation, and this is what the Supreme Court case will sort out, maybe.

More media on the topic include Gizmodo sorts out the views of several participants and a number of legal scholars' opinions and analysis:

  • The United States Supreme Court's linked list of relevant documents
  • The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by a Cato Institute research fellow concerning Section 230 and compelled speech
  • The Cornell Law Review has an analysis that states "requiring tech companies to maintain politically neutral content moderation algorithms is a form of compelled speech and is therefore presumptively unconstitutional under the First Amendment."

– B

ok i will write this one i guess jp×g 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


← Previous "Special report"
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • As with any of this stuff, I suspect at least some of the insanity will be toned down. The Linux kernel was first developed in Europe, so I can't see them saying "Oh, sorry, you can't run apt any more." But even if they come out with some crazy law like that, it won't shut down—it will just get hosted and run outside the EU by non-EU residents, and then not be subject to EU law anyway. It amazes me that people forget the Internet is global, so attempts to regulate it like that are a fool's errand, at least unless you could get every country in the world to agree on doing it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that Julian Assange will be heartened by your authoritative legal opinion that not being an American citizen or resident or even setting foot in the place and using servers located well outside the United States means that their laws don't apply to him and the United States cannot possibly attempt to take legal action against him for breaking its crazy laws. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Assange never has gotten extradited to the US, has he? But I said nothing about being an American citizen. If the EU wants to do their thing, those of us who live outside it should just ignore them. I'm no more subject to EU law than I am subject to North Korean law, and I've got no problem calling Jong-Un "Fat Boy Kim". That's illegal as hell in North Korea, but well, I'm not there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only EU. UNESCO's new regulation [2], USA's scientific papers [3] --Gannmmm (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Want the latest Signpost delivered to your talk page each month?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-02-04/Special_report&oldid=1137163203"