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.”

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    They say the multiverse contains every possible version of existence. They are wrong. There is no version of existence in which our illegitimate “supreme” court sides with any entity that exists to provide honest education to the public. As long as conservatives have infested the court (and our nation), it simply cannot happen.

    • Kiosade@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      Well yeah they said every POSSIBLE version. If it’s not possible, it wouldn’t exist in the multiverse.

        • SpookyUnderwear@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          Nothing after number 1 is relevant. As long as you are nominated by the current POTUS, and are confirmed by the senate via a simple majority, you are legitimate.

          As far as number 1 goes, which non-elected presidents appointed justices?