An extremely dangerous and disturbing development out of Portugal regarding free speech

[Safiel]

Caesar DePaço - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you visit the length, the banner on top of the article says it all. Wikipedia has been forced to censor the above article due to a Portuguese court judgement. Even more disturbingly, Wikipedia had to surrender personal information of all who edited that article.

The implications are much broader. If you say something against a Portuguese citizen, any citizen, you could find yourself hauled into court.

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-court-decision-out-portugal-shows-how-essential-section-230-free-internet

We are very fortunate to have Section 230 in the United States and this case proves just how important Section 230 is.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Caesar DePaço - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you visit the length, the banner on top of the article says it all. Wikipedia has been forced to censor the above article due to a Portuguese court judgement. Even more disturbingly, Wikipedia had to surrender personal information of all who edited that article.

The implications are much broader. If you say something against a Portuguese citizen, any citizen, you could find yourself hauled into court.

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-court-decision-out-portugal-shows-how-essential-section-230-free-internet

We are very fortunate to have Section 230 in the United States and this case proves just how important Section 230 is.

Isn't Wikipedia headquartered in San Francisco? Seems rather bizarre that a Portuguese court could order them to do anything at all.

 

[Safiel]

Isn't Wikipedia headquartered in San Francisco? Seems rather bizarre that a Portuguese court could order them to do anything at all.

Even though the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered in the United States, long standing international law gives courts jurisdiction over suits between citizens of their country and citizens/organizations of foreign states. Just as the courts of the United States exercise jurisdiction over the same kind of suits.

 

[Napoleon]

Isn't Wikipedia headquartered in San Francisco? Seems rather bizarre that a Portuguese court could order them to do anything at all.

They typically acquiesce in foreign countries because otherwise their site will be blocked by the government.

 

[Cosmo]

Isn't Wikipedia headquartered in San Francisco? Seems rather bizarre that a Portuguese court could order them to do anything at all.

If they want to do business in Portugal or have property or employees there, and want to continue to do so, then I guess they can. It comes down to weighing the benefits of being considered neutral vs the benefits of having visitors from Portugal. I suppose if Portugal gets really upset, they could take action to block Wikipedia access from Portugal (depends on how much control the government there has over internet access). More likely is that Wikipedia owners folded to a national government's pressure given that it's just some article about some former government employee that few people will care about and decided it wasn't worth it to antagonize said national government over it.

 

[Napoleon]

Caesar DePaço - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you visit the length, the banner on top of the article says it all. Wikipedia has been forced to censor the above article due to a Portuguese court judgement. Even more disturbingly, Wikipedia had to surrender personal information of all who edited that article.

The implications are much broader. If you say something against a Portuguese citizen, any citizen, you could find yourself hauled into court.

https://www.cato.org/blog/new-court-decision-out-portugal-shows-how-essential-section-230-free-internet

We are very fortunate to have Section 230 in the United States and this case proves just how important Section 230 is.

Well, not exactly. The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can add and edit content. Section 230 shields the company from liability but it does not shield them from subpoena to identify who the contributors are to be sued individually for defamation.

 

[Safiel]

Well, not exactly. The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can add and edit content. Section 230 shields the company from liability but it does not shield them from subpoena to identify who the contributors are to be sued individually for defamation.

If an editor is acting properly, he is not committing defamation. If I find an article in the New York Times that has negative information on an individual and I add that information to the individual's article, I have not committed defamation, as long as the article is properly cited and the information added to the article was consistent with the cited source.

If you are editing Wikipedia properly, you are NOT adding your own opinions on a subject. You are solely adding third party information to the article.

If I add unsourced information saying that so and so is a child molester, then yes, I have committed defamation.

In this case, it seems that most of the information in the article was properly sourced and cited and the editors should not face repercussions for adding the information.

 

[Napoleon]

If an editor is acting properly, he is not committing defamation. If I find an article in the New York Times that has negative information on an individual and I add that information to the individual's article, I have not committed defamation, as long as the article is properly cited and the information added to the article was consistent with the cited source.

If you are editing Wikipedia properly, you are NOT adding your own opinions on a subject. You are solely adding third party information to the article.

If I add unsourced information saying that so and so is a child molester, then yes, I have committed defamation.

In this case, it seems that most of the information in the article was properly sourced and cited and the editors should not face repercussions for adding the information.

The point being that Wikipedia would not be immune to identifying the contributors even in the United States. Whether or not defamation occurred is for a civil jury to decide. There are alot of “ifs” in your post that a civil jury would hash out.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Even though the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered in the United States, long standing international law gives courts jurisdiction over suits between citizens of their country and citizens/organizations of foreign states. Just as the courts of the United States exercise jurisdiction over the same kind of suits.

I wouldn't think action that occurs wholly outside the jurisdiction of a court is subject to their review just because it ruffles the feelings of one of their citizens.

I should probably count my lucky stars that some foreigner on this forum hasn't gotten a bug up their ass about something I've said and decided to sue me in their own country.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

They typically acquiesce in foreign countries because otherwise their site will be blocked by the government.

I say let 'em block it, then.