Swiss court judgment against the WMF

[tarantino]

Jacob Rogers, legal counsel for the wmf, writes on the German wikipedia:

Hi all

We want to let you know some unfortunate news about a new court judgment in Switzerland, which has ruled against the Wikimedia Foundation under Swiss law. The decision can be found at this link. The case asks for removal of some material from a German-language article (the desired change is on page 17 of the judgment), and we want to let you know about it so that the community can review the issue under relevant community policies. We’ve also emailed this info to some of the German-language functionaries to help provide people with time to review.

The case concerns a Swiss animal rights activist, Erwin Kessler (article link). He originally notified OTRS of his concerns by email, but then sued the Foundation after we were not able to immediately assist him. He objects to references to old court proceedings from the late 90s and the allegations that he discriminated based on race or religion.

We’re currently considering our legal options, but wanted to alert the community of this development so that the article could be reviewed in light of this judgment and under relevant community policies.

Here's a copy of the ruling, in German.

[GlwnDwr]

How are they going to enforce this? Everyone can make an account and reinstate the controversial information back into the article.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I presume that they are not going to enforce it, since that would establish that they were responsible for content and jeopardise their CDA §230 immunity. They will go through a charade of asking the community to please do it, and then ostentatiously wring their hands if and when it doesn't happen.

[The Adversary]

Neozoon (T-C-L) is trying, though.

[tarantino]

How are they going to enforce this? Everyone can make an account and reinstate the controversial information back into the article.

wmDE and wmCH are parties in this case. I presume some of their members have the ability to protect or delete the article and could be compelled to do so.

[Earthy Astringent]

Aren't the servers in the US?

[Randy from Boise]

WMF needs to fight this legal battle to the last trench.

RfB

[Poetlister]

Aren't the servers in the US?

Yes, but members of WMCH are in Switzerland and hence can be compelled to do things. As a nuclear option, Wikipedia or at least some pages could be blocked in Switzerland and maybe other European countries. There was a page blocked briefly in Britain at the request of the Internet Watch Foundation because it had a photo deemed to be child porn. Famously, after that was overturned David Gerard did a small amount of gleeful dancing on the skulls of the IWF.

[Earthy Astringent]

Aren't the servers in the US?

Yes, but members of WMCH are in Switzerland and hence can be compelled to do things. As a nuclear option, Wikipedia or at least some pages could be blocked in Switzerland and maybe other European countries. There was a page blocked briefly in Britain at the request of the Internet Watch Foundation because it had a photo deemed to be child porn. Famously, after that was overturned David Gerard did a small amount of gleeful dancing on the skulls of the IWF.

The douche is strong with this one.

[Tarc]

Aren't the servers in the US?

Yes, but members of WMCH are in Switzerland and hence can be compelled to do things. As a nuclear option, Wikipedia or at least some pages could be blocked in Switzerland and maybe other European countries. There was a page blocked briefly in Britain at the request of the Internet Watch Foundation because it had a photo deemed to be child porn. Famously, after that was overturned David Gerard did a small amount of gleeful dancing on the skulls of the IWF.

Was that over the Scorpions album cover? On hindsight, I wish I'd never dived in to defend that nonsense.

[Poetlister]

Yes, Virgin Killer (T-H-L). Obviously, the child porn is still there.