Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 163 posts

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#41

Post by AmericanChopper »

latch wrote: post #15
1996 wrote: post #3

Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.

I know this isn't related to hate speech, it was done to protect someone's family, but in much of the world, various forms of speech are regulated (by judges or elected officials). To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope. I think i…

It’s the slipperiest slope of all. Thousands of people have been arrested for causing offence in the UK after they introduced their absurd laws. Police have recently been threatening to arrest people for mocking them online. In the US we’re very lucky to have the first amendment to protect our speech no matter who deems it hateful or offensive.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#42

Post by georgek »

maxpupmax wrote: post #40
pietroglyph wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removal from office is the last thing that should happen in this situation. The judge made a questionable decision, which will be appealed, but the judge should not be fired (that is an action reserved for actual misconduct). If we do the latter to judges with whom we do not agree, we jeopardize the independence of our judiciary.

Disagree with the overall sentiment. If judges make decisions which don't represent the mandate of their constituents, they can/should be removed. See the Brock Turner judge in the SF bay area. Glad he's gone! That said, you may be right about this particular situation.

Just a clarification: federal judges (like the one in this article) are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. They are not elected and do not have constituents in the same way elected officials do.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#43

Post by garmaine »

jessaustin wrote: post #10
anothergoogler wrote: post #5

Here's the article before it was edited: https://web.archive.org/web/20180714180330/http://www.latime...

John Saro Balian, 45, pleaded guilty to one count each of soliciting a bribe, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators as part of a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors. The document was ordered to be filed under seal but appeared on PACER, a public online database for court documents. I'd say that last part is the part that got LAT in trouble... I rarely support the whole "un…

> especially when it's in order to protect a corrupt dirtbag cop

It was an order to protect his family from retribution from violent psychopaths that have in the past murdered not just informants / plea deal recipients, but their entire family in the most bloody way imaginable. I would not be surprised if the headline in a few days is about his wife and children dying in ways unfit to print. And it would be irresponsible journalism of the LA Times that made it happen.

I’m one of the most pro free speech person I know, but I’m squarely with the judge and the right to seal court proceedings here. And with a now gone age of journalism where this crap didn’t happen in the first place.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#44

Post by hedora »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32
Bizarro wrote: post #2

Stifling the first amendment is serious business. When are judges going to be held accountable for their wrong actions?

I'm not sure that trying to prevent publication of something that was filed under seal is a "wrong action" by a judge...

It is an incorrect ruling, since it directly contradicts precedent.

This sort of thing often slows down promotions into higher courts (as it should — lower courts should not routinely waste everyone’s time and money with rulings that will surely be overturned on appeal).

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#45

Post by GavinMcG »

Bizarro wrote: post #2

Stifling the first amendment is serious business. When are judges going to be held accountable for their wrong actions?

Their wrong actions? What wrong actions? The judge did their job: they considered the facts and the law, and applied their legal reasoning, and reached a conclusion.

The fact that you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean the judge acted wrongly. There's nothing to be held accountable for.

The reasoning or decision itself, on the other hand, will go through the processes of review that almost all judicial decisions go through.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#46

Post by yadaeno »

The times wrote about a confidential document that was mistakenly released to the pulblic. The judge who sealed the document in the first ordered the times to redact their article which goes against decades of case law and arguably the first amendment. Not only this but the Streisand effect seems to suggest that the court order will have the opposite than intended effect

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#47

Post by hedora »

forapurpose wrote: post #25
jessaustin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paragraph before that mentions that it is often appeals courts who have protected the behavior, as various trial "...Judges have issued similar orders before..." Incidentally, no one would wish to see the cop's family harmed, but it's not like this plea agreement came as a surprise to them, so they already had time to reorganize their lives for security. That makes the seal difficult to justify. Also, the risks t…

> often appeals courts who have protected the behavior, as various trial "...Judges have issued similar orders before..." That omits every time a district judge has declined to issue such an order. In reference to the original post: > ask for forgiveness not permission News organizations don't ask permission of anyone before publishing, least of all courts. Finally, I'll add that if news organizations can publish the…

I’d add that they are the asking for forgiveness; prior court rulings clearly established that they have “permission”, since the information was not illegally obtained, and is of public interest.

What if this crooked cop gets a job with even a modicum of authority in the future? Surely, insuring this incident shows up in background checks would help future potential employers.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#48

Post by hedora »

ars wrote: post #31
pseingatl wrote: post #20

Wikileaks gets raked over the coals for (allegedly) printing similar information and the LA Times gets a pass. I believe it was in the Noriega case where the first order to CNN not to publish was made. It was overturned by the 11th Circuit.

> and the LA Times gets a pass Hu? The LA Times took it down. How is that "gets a pass"? The LA Times also acquired the information lawfully, Wikileaks did not.

The people at the LA times that published the information haven’t been forced to choose between exile in an embassy, and facing a kangaroo court, and also well-documented persecution via probably illegal psy-ops, falsified slanderous/libelous communications “from” trusted colleagues, etc, etc.

Compared to wikileaks, they “got a pass”. It doesn’t make the mistreatment of the LA Times any better though.

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#49

Post by djsumdog »

There is a lot of crossover here and the Right to be Forgotten. The EFF opposed EU right to be forgotten laws because they could often be used in censorship (like in this very matter).

In the US, there are fewer people who expunge criminal records because there are companies that will produced expunged records in background checks so long as they were public at any time. Banning this gets into 1st amendment grounds.

And that's the flip side: labeling theory. In places like Australia, certain crimes do get removed from your record so long as you've stayed out of the system for five years. Even their sex offender registry has limited use (certain jobs, housing restrictions etc.); it's not public like ours. Then again, they don't have freedom of speech (except in Victoria; sorta).

Could we have laws that restrict companies from considering criminal records past x number of years in the US? I'm not sure if that'd be possible in our currently legal system.

In America, you can't really restrict information, once it's published, except in certain limited cases (like when a case involves a minor).

Re: Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

#50

Post by FireBeyond »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #36
FireBeyond wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every copyright performance enforcement Apropos of anything else, if I go somewhere and broadcast Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, or whatever, that is in no way my speech, and regulating the ability to do so without commission or royalty in no way restricts my ability to speak.

It is if you make a derived work.

Show me all the court cases smacking down genuine derivative works or parodies. It does happen, but fairly rarely, and there's usually "more to it".
Post reply on HN