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

61–70 of 163 posts

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

#61

Post by DrJones1098 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #7
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 was thinking it would turn out to be one of those bizarre elected judges that the US has. But I think federal judges are all appointed through some resemblance of a sensible process, so I'm at a loss as well.

This judge was nominated by G W Bush. Conservatives seem to be staunchly against the press except their version of it.

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

#62

Post by dgellow »

omeid2 wrote: post #54
djsumdog wrote: post #49

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.…

> they don't have freedom of speech I think the issue of freedom of speech is much more nuanced than that. For example, even in places with "absolute freedom of speech", which I suspect is what you're implying, there is defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth.

> There is also laws around hate speech and so forth.

Not in the US (as far as I understand). See the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...

> In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito writes:

> “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).”

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

#63

Post by PinkMilkshake »

omeid2 wrote: post #54
djsumdog wrote: post #49

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.…

> they don't have freedom of speech I think the issue of freedom of speech is much more nuanced than that. For example, even in places with "absolute freedom of speech", which I suspect is what you're implying, there is defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth.

I think what your parent meant was Australia doesn't have any explicit freedom of speech protection laws, unlike the US and some other countries. Which is true.

"The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals." - https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-a...

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

#65

Post by king_nothing »

hkai wrote: post #51
yadaeno wrote: post #46

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

I agree that rare, isolated incidents like this one will have the Streisand effect. However, once this practice becomes routine, it will no longer be the case.

Yes and arbitrary state censorship via prior restraint is knocking on our doors right now. If this isn’t throughly thrown out with prejudice, things will only get much, much worse.

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

#66

Post by king_nothing »

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…

If the death penalty were ever plausibly-beneficial, this sort of low-life would deserve it.

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

#67

Post by jkaplowitz »

FireBeyond wrote: post #50
SamReidHughes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Deriving from a copyrighted work without permission is infringement unless it falls into some exception like fair use. As you note, parodies often qualify for that exception, but that's not the general rule.

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

#68

Post by sschueller »

djsumdog wrote: post #49

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.…

I think it is abhorrent that data of expunged criminal records are kept by private firms. Why can't this be made illegal if yelling "fire" in a theater is?

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

#69

Post by confounded »

dgellow wrote: post #62
omeid2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they don't have freedom of speech I think the issue of freedom of speech is much more nuanced than that. For example, even in places with "absolute freedom of speech", which I suspect is what you're implying, there is defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth.

> There is also laws around hate speech and so forth. Not in the US (as far as I understand). See the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat... > In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the regist…

There are still limits in the US. You have to promise that you’ve never been a member of a communist party on entry. It wouldn’t be wise to talk about bombs near an airport, or tweet about killing the president when he’s visiting your city. People who say controversial things, write controversial articles, or make controversial films tend to get detained and questioned at the border a lot, get harassed, and get their devices confiscated.

Absolute freedom of speech doesn’t really exist anywhere. The US is probably one of the most liberal countries on earth when it comes to policing it, but it’s not like anyone can say anything.

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

#70

Post by astura »

promopacket wrote: post #14
anothergoogler wrote: post #5

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

And an archive.is link of that one, for good measure: https://archive.is/g8jV7

That's the redacted version.
Post reply on HN