3 ms·

I disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/09/18/explained-whats-ani

I disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgW2Xkz21Wc https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/09/18/explained-whats-ani-vs-wikipedia-legal-battle-all-about https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/09/18/explained-whats-ani-v... https://archive.is/0lUgq https://archive.is/0lUgq > The court has asked Wikipedia to disclose details of individuals who made edits on its ANI page. From the last archive of the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._W... https://archive.is/dNTEl https://archive.is/dNTEl > The case was filed in July 2024 before Justice Navin Chawla in the Delhi High Court as ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v Wikimedia Foundation Inc & Ors. At the time of the suit's filing, the Wikipedia article about Asian News International (ANI) said the news agency had "been accused of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government, distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites, and misreporting events on multiple occasions". > The filing accused Wikipedia of publishing "false and defamatory content with the malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation, and aimed to discredit its goodwill". It also complained that Wikipedia had "closed" the article about ANI for editing except by Wikipedia's "own editors", citing this as evidence of defamation with malicious intent and evidence that WMF was using its "officials" to "actively participate" in controlling content. > According to Newslaundry, the sentence ANI objects to has "clear citations that lead to the primary source of information", including to The Caravan, The Ken, BBC News, EU DisinfoLab, Politico, and The Diplomat. Newslaundry and journalist Nikhil Pahwa pointed out that none of the media organizations used as sources were included in ANI's complaint. According to The Indian Express, the lawsuit is an attempt to hold WMF liable for edits to Wikipedia. > Software Freedom Law Center, India, a member-affiliate of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, found the suit to be an attempt at stifling free speech. Nishant Shah, professor of Global Media at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and faculty associate at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, wrote that Chawla's decision to order the release of personally-identifying information was "a challenge to freedom of speech and information" and would result in the censorship of "any form of critical information that powerful organisations do not like". Pahwa called it censorship that threatened to "stifle the flow of information and knowledge". Multiple lawyers have critiqued Manomhan and Gedela's order to take down the page on the litigation, too, disagreeing with the allegations of interfering with judicial proceedings and noting similar coverage by mainstream media. > Tanveer Hasan, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, called the proceedings an "assault on the freedom of speech under the guise of technological regulation".

adastra22 2y ago
It is very standard in many jurisdictions for courts to prevent either party from making public statements on a case until it is resolved. That is what is going on here.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  I don't find this argument compelling in this case, because news agencies cited by the Wikipedia article in question were not themselves subject to similar or the same lawsuit.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    If you are subject to a lawsuit and the judge issues a gag order restricting you (and the party suing you) from making public statements about the court case until it is resolved, that wouldn't be weird no? If that were to happen, and you were to then publish an article about this exact court case on your blog, you'd be found in contempt of court and rightly so. Even if the blog article only summarizes and links to other content, like the news articles. You were restricted from speaking about the case, and you broke that restriction. What part of "don't make public statements about this case" didn't you understand? That's what's going on here. Wikipedia is, essentially, Wikimedia Foundation's blog. This article about the court case is, legally speaking, Wikimedia speaking about an ongoing case they are involved with. If the court issues a gag order, they have to respect it. This is subjudice, not censorship.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      Wikimedia Foundation is not the author of Wikipedia - individual editors are. WMF isn't making any statements - editors are when they write articles. It's censoring speech of editors not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and threatening legal penalties against the English language Wikipedia. The fact that this hasn't happened before should tell everyone that this is not business as usual. No other government in the world has caused WMF to respond in such a way, which leads me to believe that this case is not as obvious as you say. Also, due to license terms of Wikipedia, by deleting the page, individually and collectively, Wikipedia editors are being denied their rights as authors. This may be a copyright violation in India, in the jurisdiction of the editors, in the legal jurisdiction in which WMF/Wikipedia are incorporated in, and/or all of the above, that is to say, worldwide.

adastra22 2y ago

It is very standard in many jurisdictions for courts to prevent either party from making public statements on a case until it is resolved. That is what is going on here.

aspenmayer 2y ago
I don't find this argument compelling in this case, because news agencies cited by the Wikipedia article in question were not themselves subject to similar or the same lawsuit.
- adastra22 2y ago
  If you are subject to a lawsuit and the judge issues a gag order restricting you (and the party suing you) from making public statements about the court case until it is resolved, that wouldn't be weird no? If that were to happen, and you were to then publish an article about this exact court case on your blog, you'd be found in contempt of court and rightly so. Even if the blog article only summarizes and links to other content, like the news articles. You were restricted from speaking about the case, and you broke that restriction. What part of "don't make public statements about this case" didn't you understand? That's what's going on here. Wikipedia is, essentially, Wikimedia Foundation's blog. This article about the court case is, legally speaking, Wikimedia speaking about an ongoing case they are involved with. If the court issues a gag order, they have to respect it. This is subjudice, not censorship.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    Wikimedia Foundation is not the author of Wikipedia - individual editors are. WMF isn't making any statements - editors are when they write articles. It's censoring speech of editors not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and threatening legal penalties against the English language Wikipedia. The fact that this hasn't happened before should tell everyone that this is not business as usual. No other government in the world has caused WMF to respond in such a way, which leads me to believe that this case is not as obvious as you say. Also, due to license terms of Wikipedia, by deleting the page, individually and collectively, Wikipedia editors are being denied their rights as authors. This may be a copyright violation in India, in the jurisdiction of the editors, in the legal jurisdiction in which WMF/Wikipedia are incorporated in, and/or all of the above, that is to say, worldwide.