Re: [Wikimedia-l] SOPA, threat or menace (was Russian Wikipedia goes on strike)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: >> Anthony wrote: >> Well, it also has to be read keeping in mind that it would be >> borderline malpractice for him to have stated "if SOPA passes then >> Wikipedia will be in violation of the law and forced to shut down" - >> just in case SOPA actually did pass, forcing WMF to argue the exact >> opposite. > > I perceive you've been very fortunate, in not having much experience > with lawyers. Ponder if a health care mandate is a tax or not, or > whether Mitt Romney thought it was in the past, or does now. There's quite a difference between a President, a presidential candidate, and a general counsel for a corporation. > Moreover, there's already the problem you see in the argument where he wrote: > > "Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an "Internet search engine," > > I'm quite sure that if SOPA actually did pass, WMF would then strongly > argue the exact opposite, that Wikipedia absolutely does not fall > under definition of an "Internet search engine" (as it is not a site > "whose primary function is gathering and reporting, ... *indexed > information* or *web sites* available elsewhere on the Internet") Well. 1) I think Mr Brigham made a mistake in making a public statement about this at all; however 2) He used the word "arguably". If SOPA did (or does) pass, and WMF was charged with violating it (which, frankly, would probably never happen), then surely they would argue that Wikipedia is not an Internet search engine. But not being something and *arguably* falling under the definition of something, are not mutually exclusive. >> Without Citizens United upholding free speech of people who use the >> assistance of corporations, something like PIPA would be much easier >> to impose. And the lobbying currently being done by WMF could very >> well be outlawed. The Wikimedia Foundation is, after all, a >> corporation. > > The Wikimedia Foundation's legal issues with lobbying are very far > from the Citizens United sort of case. Well, yeah, sure. And WMF's legal issues with copyright infringement are very different from the sort of cases that would be prosecuted under PIPA or a PIPA-like law too. But if the court in Citizens United had opened the door to restricting nonprofit organizations from engaging in one type of grassroots lobbying, I don't see how they could leave the door closed regarding other types of grassroots lobbying, such as the type which WMF is engaging in. And really, I don't see how the could leave the door closed regarding speech in general involving corporate expenditures. Political speech is, for good reasons, the type of speech which is most heavily protected by the First Amendment. > The primary legal issue for WMF here is its > tax-exempt status and the restrictions which go along with that. Which, > sigh, is not to assert that WMF violated any such legal restrictions, > but only to point out that such legal restrictions will become a > limiting issue long before any corporations-aren't-people campaign > finance laws. Not at all. 501(C)(3) charities are allowed to engage in quite a bit of grassroots lobbying without losing their tax-exempt status (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_lobbying#Public_Charity_Lobbying_Law). If Citizens United had gone the other way, there would be nothing to stop Congress from eliminating the ability of corporations to engage in grassroots lobbying altogether. > >> I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the >> proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain >> traction in Congress. > > Well, check if the WMF starts getting large donations from the likes > of the Koch brothers or Karl Rove's Super PAC :-) . Well, no...but there is http://www.infodocket.com/2012/01/03/wikmedia-foundation-hires-dc-lobbying-firm/ And, of course, there is the (grassroots, not direct) lobbying that WMF has already (visibly) engaged in. I'm not sure if we'll have any way to know if they've been involved in any direct lobbying until the 2011-2012 990 comes in. > Oh, excuse me, > it would be a community decision based on the extreme danger to > Wikipedia from such measures (hmm, Wikipedia relies on the US > Constitution, so anything which amends that COULD KILL WIKIPEDIA!!!). Right. Except, well, it doesn't fit in the political persuasion of most Wikipedians. Not as strongly as "copyright infringement is not theft", anyway. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] SOPA, threat or menace (was Russian Wikipedia goes on strike)
> Anthony wrote: > Well, it also has to be read keeping in mind that it would be > borderline malpractice for him to have stated "if SOPA passes then > Wikipedia will be in violation of the law and forced to shut down" - > just in case SOPA actually did pass, forcing WMF to argue the exact > opposite. I perceive you've been very fortunate, in not having much experience with lawyers. Ponder if a health care mandate is a tax or not, or whether Mitt Romney thought it was in the past, or does now. Moreover, there's already the problem you see in the argument where he wrote: "Wikipedia arguably falls under the definition of an "Internet search engine," I'm quite sure that if SOPA actually did pass, WMF would then strongly argue the exact opposite, that Wikipedia absolutely does not fall under definition of an "Internet search engine" (as it is not a site "whose primary function is gathering and reporting, ... *indexed information* or *web sites* available elsewhere on the Internet") > Without Citizens United upholding free speech of people who use the > assistance of corporations, something like PIPA would be much easier > to impose. And the lobbying currently being done by WMF could very > well be outlawed. The Wikimedia Foundation is, after all, a > corporation. The Wikimedia Foundation's legal issues with lobbying are very far from the Citizens United sort of case. This all could have happened before that decision. The primary legal issue for WMF here is its tax-exempt status and the restrictions which go along with that. Which, sigh, is not to assert that WMF violated any such legal restrictions, but only to point out that such legal restrictions will become a limiting issue long before any corporations-aren't-people campaign finance laws. > I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the > proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain > traction in Congress. Well, check if the WMF starts getting large donations from the likes of the Koch brothers or Karl Rove's Super PAC :-) . Oh, excuse me, it would be a community decision based on the extreme danger to Wikipedia from such measures (hmm, Wikipedia relies on the US Constitution, so anything which amends that COULD KILL WIKIPEDIA!!!). By the way, the Russian law has passed despite the protests: http://www.voanews.com/content/russian_lawmakers_approve_internet_blacklist_measure/1403276.html "Russia's lower house of parliament has approved a bill that gives the government power to blacklist websites containing what officials consider objectionable material." There's many dangers for pawns in being deluded they are players. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] SOPA, threat or menace (was Russian Wikipedia goes on strike)
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > Semi-digression - I'd take the above argument more seriously if dedicated > Wikipedia editors didn't keep making "BADSITES" proposals. It's also interesting to watch the overlap of PIPA-opponents, and Citizens United opponents. Without Citizens United upholding free speech of people who use the assistance of corporations, something like PIPA would be much easier to impose. And the lobbying currently being done by WMF could very well be outlawed. The Wikimedia Foundation is, after all, a corporation. I wonder if the WMF will shut down in protest should one of the proposals to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United gain traction in Congress. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] SOPA, threat or menace (was Russian Wikipedia goes on strike)
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: > But the whole post gave me an impression of a good lawyer attempting > to reconcile the imperative of being a zealous advocate for the > interests of a client, while still remaining intellectually honest. Well, it also has to be read keeping in mind that it would be borderline malpractice for him to have stated "if SOPA passes then Wikipedia will be in violation of the law and forced to shut down" - just in case SOPA actually did pass, forcing WMF to argue the exact opposite. Due to this difficult position, I was surprised that he wrote anything public about it at all. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
