Truthful speech

[thekohser]

Jimbo Wales, his mouth a complete stranger to truthful speech, recently said:

...under no circumstances ever is it OK to use the force of law to suppress truthful speech. The very idea is disgusting and philosophically bankrupt.

In the spirit of unsuppressed truthful speech, MyWikiBiz gives the world the truthful, legally-obtained, public results of Pinellas County court case 09-011014-FD-12, resolved by Circuit Judge Jack Helinger in April 2011.

[Coat of Many Colours]

Jimbo Wales, his mouth a complete stranger to truthful speech, recently said:

...under no circumstances ever is it OK to use the force of law to suppress truthful speech. The very idea is disgusting and philosophically bankrupt.

In the spirit of unsuppressed truthful speech, MyWikiBiz gives the world the truthful, legally-obtained, public results of Pinellas County court case 09-011014-FD-12, resolved by Circuit Judge Jack Helinger in April 2011.

The first page of that shows how confused Wales is about the issue. The newspaper wasn't printing a story about Gonzales. They were printing an advertisement from the Spanish Ministry of Labour and Social Security and they declined to remove Gonzales name on that ground. The Spanish National High Court upheld them. They were not obliged to 'censor' anything. Regarding Google they made a number of claims, of which the 'right to be forgotten' (properly 'the right to erasure') was their least. They claimed that European legislation was not relevant to hyperlinks carried by their Spanish servers (because the processing was carried out in the US), that the processing didn't involve the processing of personal data and that in any case they couldn't be regarded as a data processor. All of these claims were rejected by the Court of Justice of the European Union. It follows thet Google are responsible for the hyperlinks they carry and must erase them on any of several grounds, including their inaccuracy. That's what's really new, that's what really at stake here. It in fact puts Google level on the same playing field as Wikipedia with regards to its own European servers.

The second new thing is about the 'right to be forgotten', that information which is outdated, irrelevant or excessive should be erased when private interest trumps public interest. Wales calls that censorship. Apparently he has joined the board Google has drawn up to oversee this process, his mission no less to impose the American way with the First Amendment on the rest of world. So totally in the NPOV spirit of Wikipedia.

[Triptych]

Don't blame the First Amendment or the American Way, Coat of Many Colours. Wales is just running his mouth. Kohs is within right to post his divorce documents as illustration where that argument leads.

EDIT: Besides you own this guy too now, by marriage.

[Coat of Many Colours]

Don't blame the First Amendment or the American Way, Coat of Many Colours. Wales is just running his mouth. Kohs is within right to post his divorce documents as illustration where that argument leads.

EDIT: Besides you own this guy too now, by marriage.

I'm not sure that Wales is just running his mouth here. I do see it as symptomatic of American hegemony on the Internet.

As I say I'm not a lawyer and don't really have access to my mutli-corporate legal team at the moment , but I should think in European Law publishing a link to a document that details the Wales' family expenses constitutes "processing" and therefore, if Wikipediocracy was run on a European server, the site would have to be registered with the relevant national data authority and my guess would be that thenceforth it would fall foul of nation legislation. However Wikipediocracy runs on servers located in America http://whois.domaintools.com/wikipediocracy.com (a familiar looking name there), so that's OK.

Eh, marriage to Jimbo? My dear, it would be quite, quite impossible ...

Only got a few more hours in this erm ... grasshopper cafe here selling funny tasting blueberry muffins. I'm going to amuse myself seeing if I can't track down a Google link to Jimbo's current address I can share freely with the world before passing out from a surfeit of good old yankee blueberries (whatever). If you don't hear back it's becasue I've passed on from mere worldly concerns.

Added: This OK BTW.Good old Google. I also found a link to a fairly dinkum penis painting of Jimbo by Pricasso (actually not on Commons - what a shame). There's a milk shake here called Super Lemon Haze I might have a go at now. I'll keep me posted. You me whoever.

Added a bit later: I found this for that porn site he founded with Larry Flynt (no really) but that's not a business address so you can start there Mother Russia if you're looking in. That milkshake was total shit BTW. CALL THAT A MILKSHAKE FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

And a wee bit more: Apparently married to some bint or other I vaguely remember meeting at a top secret briefing about something or other a few years back. Moved next door for some sensible Heineken I mostly own anyway (think that's right). I'll check on Google once my head clears a bit.

Oh my god my god my god this is just huge ... it's Kate A Garvey ... KAG or ... AGK when you do a simple SEIZURE on it. Oldest trick in tradecraft !!! Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck it's so clear now. How could I ever have been so blind! I'm going straight to GCHQ with this. I just hope I'm not too late. You will appreciate I shall necessarily be incommunicado for a while. That was Bob Geldof incidentally BTW, sorry. Probably not a briefing. Memory funnily not what it usually is this evening.

It's in Marleybone close to a café MR. Best I can do right now. As far as I know I own Marleybone too, so it should be simple enough in principle to check. I can hear the helicopter coming in now. Going underground deep net for a while. Ciao all.

[Poetlister]

I suppose that if you wanted to be a Wikilawyer, you could argue that Jimbo is only opposed to using "the force of law to suppress truthful speech". He might have no objection to suppression by other methods, such as ArbCom edict.

[Vigilant]

Oh my god my god my god this is just huge ... it's Kate A Garvey ... KAG or ... AGK when you do a simple SEIZURE on it.

I've been ... so blind.

[Zoloft]

Almost every hit for "Super Lemon Haze" is for a variety of marijuana.

Coat, did the milkshake seem a bit like alfalfa had been blended in?

[Poetlister]

A thought - could some kind person correct the error in Jimbo's birth date in his article? We now have a reliable, verifiable source for his true birth date.

[thekohser]

A thought - could some kind person correct the error in Jimbo's birth date in his article? We now have a reliable, verifiable source for his true birth date.

Indeed! In fact, I would call two of the four sources that Wikipedia cites to uphold the August 7th date on the flimsy side:

Current Biography Yearbook.

Who's Who in America: Diamond Edition

[Coat of Many Colours]

Almost every hit for "Super Lemon Haze" is for a variety of marijuana.

Coat, did the milkshake seem a bit like alfalfa had been blended in?

Can't really remember, but everything today has a funny blue tinge to it. Prolly something I ate on the plane over.

This thing of Jimbo over the EU ruling is pretty arrogant and just plain wrong-headed.

Will be away a few weeks here and probably less active on Wikipedia when I return. I think I'll get back to just doing my arty thing there. All these dramas too much for a sensitive soul like me.

Keep up the good work here, all.

[Coat of Many Colours]

Don't blame the First Amendment or the American Way, Coat of Many Colours. Wales is just running his mouth. Kohs is within right to post his divorce documents as illustration where that argument leads.

EDIT: Besides you own this guy too now, by marriage.

I'm not sure that Wales is just running his mouth here. I do see it as symptomatic of American hegemony on the Internet.

As I say I'm not a lawyer and don't really have access to my mutli-corporate legal team at the moment , but I should think in European Law publishing a link to a document that details the Wales' family expenses constitutes "processing" and therefore, if Wikipediocracy was run on a European server, the site would have to be registered with the relevant national data authority and my guess would be that thenceforth it would fall foul of nation legislation. However Wikipediocracy runs on servers located in America http://whois.domaintools.com/wikipediocracy.com (a familiar looking name there), so that's OK.
...
I'm going to amuse myself seeing if I can't track down a Google link to Jimbo's current address I can share freely with the world before passing out from a surfeit of good old yankee blueberries (whatever). If you don't hear back it's becasue I've passed on from mere worldly concerns.

<snip stoned monologue>

It's in Marleybone close to a café MR. Best I can do right now. As far as I know I own Marleybone too, so it should be simple enough in principle to check. I can hear the helicopter coming in now. Going underground deep net for a while. Ciao all.

Interesting this address thing. Try this: search Google maps on 73 Chester Square, London and go into Street View. You will see an elegant Belgravia mews house in front of which stands a policeman armed with a Glock sub-machine gun.

No, not Jimbo, but the late Margaret Thatcher who lived there the last ten years or so of her life. While the number of her house, as far as I know, was never published, the location in Chester Square was widely published during her lifetime, indeed in her Wikipedia article (in the infobox "Residence" field for example). Likewise Tony Blair's modest residence in Connaught Square is also recorded in Wikipedia (two police officers in Google Street View).

But Jimbo's residence is just given as "London" in Wikipedia. I'm guessing there aren't any police officers in Street View. Page watchers from the Foundation perhaps? God you can't be too careful when you're one of the top ten most powerful people in the universe.

[Poetlister]

But Jimbo's residence is just given as "London" in Wikipedia. I'm guessing there aren't any police officers in Street View. Page watchers from the Foundation perhaps? God you can't be too careful when you're one of the top ten most powerful people in the universe.

That's the point. Jimbo hasn't got round to getting police protection yet, so he has to be more careful than these other people. And nobody from this site, so far as I know, has ever been accused of threatening to shoot Tony Blair.

[thekohser]

And nobody from this site, so far as I know, has ever been accused of threatening to shoot Tony Blair.

To be clear, nobody from this site ever "threatened" to shoot Jimmy Wales, either.

And, to be clear, Tony Blair never falsely called anyone from this site a "stalker" who he viewed as a "threat to his family".

[Triptych]

Eh, marriage to Jimbo? My dear, it would be quite, quite impossible ...

Heh, heh! Perhaps that was a poor way for me to put it. All I meant is that since Jimbo married this British woman, now he has UK citizenship of some kind if I read correctly. So the rest of the world can't blame him on USA alone anymore. And Brits especially not. If I appeared to speak impertinently I didn't mean anything by it.

I just get a little, a very little, tense when people grouse, even innocuously, about American "hegemony" of the world and so forth. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a great piece of law. Those portions of the Communications Decency Act that extensively shield websites from virtually any defamatory or libelous speech about individuals no matter how horrendous, I'm not so keen on those. As for the "American Way," well that's something that almost every American is going to have a unique conception of. German rock group Rammstein has this song "We're All Living in America" which is a great song but totally sarcastic about Coca Cola and Disneyland and Wonderbras and McDonald's and so forth. I always feel a bit funny singing along with that one because it makes fun of my country, though arguably not in a negative or demeaning way.

[Coat of Many Colours]

Eh, marriage to Jimbo? My dear, it would be quite, quite impossible ...

Heh, heh! Perhaps that was a poor way for me to put it. All I meant is that since Jimbo married this British woman, now he has UK citizenship of some kind if I read correctly. So the rest of the world can't blame him on USA alone anymore. And Brits especially not. If I appeared to speak impertinently I didn't mean anything by it.

I just get a little, a very little, tense when people grouse, even innocuously, about American "hegemony" of the world and so forth. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a great piece of law. Those portions of the Communications Decency Act that extensively shield websites from virtually any defamatory or libelous speech about individuals no matter how horrendous, I'm not so keen on those. As for the "American Way," well that's something that almost every American is going to have a unique conception of. German rock group Rammstein has this song "We're All Living in America" which is a great song but totally sarcastic about Coca Cola and Disneyland and Wonderbras and McDonald's and so forth. I always feel a bit funny singing along with that one because it makes fun of my country, though arguably not in a negative or demeaning way.

Well, I can understand that but Jimmy Wales has been pretty insensitive about his criticism of the EU decision and his championing of the 1st amendment, and I've been upfront about my disapproval, going on to his Talk page to remark it looked to me an like an American telling the rest of the world to be an American (a vice formerly reserved for sensible English telling the rest of the world to be sensibly English - I'm Scots mind).

I suppose it's really ex-pat syndrome - that dreadful thing where mere residence in another country is taken as sufficient expertise to sound off about any issue between the two nations involved.

[Coat of Many Colours]

And nobody from this site, so far as I know, has ever been accused of threatening to shoot Tony Blair.

To be clear, nobody from this site ever "threatened" to shoot Jimmy Wales, either.

And, to be clear, Tony Blair never falsely called anyone from this site a "stalker" who he viewed as a "threat to his family".

Yes, absolutely. My posts here just a satire in this forum pointing out how ludicrously protective Wikipedia is of its denizens. I've frequently pointed out elsewhere that ordinary people championing basic rights and human decency, for example journalists reporting in war zones such as the murdered Anna Politkovskaya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_jo ... _in_Russia, routinely run risks with their personal safety.

[Poetlister]

And nobody from this site, so far as I know, has ever been accused of threatening to shoot Tony Blair.

To be clear, nobody from this site ever "threatened" to shoot Jimmy Wales, either.

And, to be clear, Tony Blair never falsely called anyone from this site a "stalker" who he viewed as a "threat to his family".

yes, but someone here has been accused of such nonsense. I suppose mentiong it is off-topic given the thread should be restricted to truthful speech.

[Zoloft]

And nobody from this site, so far as I know, has ever been accused of threatening to shoot Tony Blair.

To be clear, nobody from this site ever "threatened" to shoot Jimmy Wales, either.

And, to be clear, Tony Blair never falsely called anyone from this site a "stalker" who he viewed as a "threat to his family".

yes, but someone here has been accused of such nonsense. I suppose mentiong it is off-topic given the thread should be restricted to truthful speech.

We're approaching a paradox. Bear ninety degrees east.

[Thracia]

I suppose that if you wanted to be a Wikilawyer, you could argue that Jimbo is only opposed to using "the force of law to suppress truthful speech". He might have no objection to suppression by other methods, such as ArbCom edict.

And of course, truthful speech can always be trumped by thoughtful speech.

[dogbiscuit]

I suppose that if you wanted to be a Wikilawyer, you could argue that Jimbo is only opposed to using "the force of law to suppress truthful speech". He might have no objection to suppression by other methods, such as ArbCom edict.

And of course, truthful speech can always be trumped by thoughtful speech.

I'll raise you with a "truthful and thoughtful".

He also has no objection to using the power of his own delete button either.

It is an extension of the standard paranoia about The State. He likes the power to suppress discussion he doesn't like, but objects to the very concept that someone else could have power over him.

Jimbo is very simplistic and doesn't like the idea that doing the right thing might also include making nuanced judgements, balancing rights. With everything black and white, life is easy. It becomes trivial to spout off about rights and wrongs.

The hypocrisy is rank. Within his own fiefdom has no problem whatsoever with the suppression of truthful speech. If this was such an important issue to him, then he would be the one fighting for Greg and Peter's right to express their concerns about their issues within Wikipedia, but he seems to see it is only The State that needs to be subject to these controls. He fails to see that he is part of the State on Wikipedia. If it doesn't work for him, why does he seek to impose it on others?

[Poetlister]

Maybe he genuinely believes that you can't compare trivia like running a country with important issues like Wikipedia.

[Coat of Many Colours]

This recent from BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27887639 is relevant to the debate. It describes how the UK GCHQ believes it can legally intercept Google and Facebook without a warrant because Google and Facebook's processing is carried out in the US. But as I point out at the beginning of this thread, the recent EU ruling establishes that Google's search engine comes within the scope of EU law. It's processing is carried out outside Europe, but its business model is such that it must be regarded as a single corporate entity operating in Europe.

This is what I mean when I say that Wales is in fact supporting big brother surveillance.

[Hex]

We're approaching a paradox. Bear ninety degrees east.

Is it also approaching the paradox? More to the point, is it armed?

[Coat of Many Colours]

Interesting piece in "The Express" a few years back (2009) http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/141720 ... ked-online about the address of the current head of the UK's GCHQ, Sir Iain Lobban, being leaked on the internet. The claim was that it was found on an internet search and was published legally on a socially network site by Lobban itself. The article notes that there was nothing that could be done at the time to remove the links. Amusingly the leaker had a pending job interview at GCHQ that was subsequently rescinded - it's not only Wikipedia that looks after its own thus.

[Coat of Many Colours]

Don't blame the First Amendment or the American Way, Coat of Many Colours. Wales is just running his mouth. Kohs is within right to post his divorce documents as illustration where that argument leads.

EDIT: Besides you own this guy too now, by marriage.

<snipped by GCHQ on national security grounds>

... Likewise Tony Blair's modest residence in Connaught Square is also recorded in Wikipedia (two police officers in Google Street View).

But Jimbo's residence is just given as "London" in Wikipedia. I'm guessing there aren't any police officers in Street View. Page watchers from the Foundation perhaps? God you can't be too careful when you're one of the top ten most powerful people in the universe.

Jimbo really ought to tip off Tony that if you put the search terms "Press TV Connaught Square" into Google, our ever obliging Iranian friends give you the number of his house first hit! Will Jimbo be using his new found powers to get this deleted?

[Poetlister]

Jimbo really ought to tip off Tony that if you put the search terms "Press TV Connaught Square" into Google, our ever obliging Iranian friends give you the number of his house first hit! Will Jimbo be using his new found powers to get this deleted?

I couldn't view the embedded video. Can anyone else?

[HRIP7]

Let no one say that Jimmy never tells the truth:

When I talk about why some things should be deleted, rather than somewhat permanently a stub, I am talking primarily about biographies and secondarily about articles that have some biographical consequences (companies, etc.). There is a risk - an all too real risk that we have plenty of experience with - that an obscure page will be abused and no one will notice until someone has been hurt by it. [...] --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)