On May 1, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Richard, you removed some relevant language:
>>
>> "Certain activities, whether legal or illegal, may be harmful to other
>> users and violate our rules, and some activities may also subject you to
>> liability. Therefore, for your own protection and for that of other users,
>> *you
>> may not engage in such activities on our sites*. These activities include:
>> [..] Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable
>> law."
>>
>>
>> I think that expecting the ToS to condone violations of laws that are in
>> some way "anti-freedom" is unrealistic. It seems like it would be difficult
>> to craft language to do that well.
>>
>> ~Nathan
>
> Would you like an opportunity to phrase that language in a sense that does
> not suggest Wikimedia is in support of laws that are "anti-freedom"?
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
>
>
It seems to be that the point of this section is that WMF does not condone
users to use the sites in a fashion which breaks their local laws; therefore
WMF itself may not be procesuted for conspiracy nor will WMF be liable civilly
to users who were prosecuted locally and wish to recieve compensation. If the
WMF did not disavow an intention to promote locally illegal things (like
Germans printing Swatika images found on Commons), they would be open to
liability that would result money going to lawyers. Really very, very few
countries have a right to free speech as strong as the US, including countries
were WMF actually has significant assets. China is not the issue here.
Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it, is
neither wise nor ethical.
BirgitteSB
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
