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

71–80 of 163 posts

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

#71

Post by jkaplowitz »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #41
latch wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are middle grounds that also work well, like what Canada has.

It's got entrenched constitutional protections for freedom of expression which courts are willing to use to invalidate laws, but the same constitution explicitly allows certain limits on that freedom.

The balance isn't perfect, especially not as applied to most Canadian defamation laws (Quebec is a bit friendlier to defendants here). But it's pretty good and way better than the UK's lack of any restraint on Parliament's surveillance state tendencies.

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

#72

Post by JumpCrisscross »

njharman wrote: post #17
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.

Judges and elected officials routinely regulate free speech. Every court sealed record, every copyright performance enforcement, every liable/slander ruling, every pornograpy lewd speech law/FCC regulation, hate crime and bullying laws that limit what anyone can say, tons of national security arms export that restrict wide gamut of things like CPUs and maths algorithms. Some of those I agree with. Some I don't. Point…

Not to mention anti-fraud statutes.

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

#73

Post by astura »

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's incorrect from a legal perspective. Judges are required to act within the legal framework.

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

#75

Post by onetimemanytime »

sschueller wrote: post #68
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?

should be illegal for anyone to seek such info for prospective employers, renters etc. Free speech? OK, but the company cannot seek it or else...

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

#76

Post by chrisseaton »

sschueller wrote: post #68
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?

I can’t see how you can prevent someone making a truthful record of history. What are you going to do? Hold a gun to people’s heads and tell them to forget that things have happened?

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

#77

Post by AmericanChopper »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #71
AmericanChopper wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are middle grounds that also work well, like what Canada has. It's got entrenched constitutional protections for freedom of expression which courts are willing to use to invalidate laws, but the same constitution explicitly allows certain limits on that freedom. The balance isn't perfect, especially not as applied to most Canadian defamation laws (Quebec is a bit friendlier to defendants here). But it's pretty…

Canada is a terrible example, they have compelled speech in their laws. Referring to somebody by the wrong pronoun is a criminal offence in Canada. The right to free speech is intrinsically the right to be offensive, for the very simple reason that any statement at all could be taken as offensive by somebody. As soon as you criminalise being offensive, any speech becomes fair game for government censorship. It is the very definition of a slippery slope.

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

#78

Post by vidarh »

chrisseaton wrote: post #76
sschueller wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I can’t see how you can prevent someone making a truthful record of history. What are you going to do? Hold a gun to people’s heads and tell them to forget that things have happened?

In a whole lot of countries this information is not readily publicly available in the first place, and privately publishing it means someone has violated the terms under which they were given access.

E.g. in the UK, to even be able to do a check to see if someone is barred from certain types of work, you are required to abide by a long list of terms which goes much further than merely not republishing the data. To request a less comprehensive check requires you to have a compelling need (a specific set of roles). The basic checks can only requested by the person they're about.

Violating the terms comes at the risk of no longer being able to do records check (among other consequences), which may force you to close down your business in the worst case.

Nothing prevents you from making a truthful record of history if you have the data, but lots of things act to prevent most attempts to publish them.

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

#79

Post by kryogen1c »

confounded wrote: post #69
dgellow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Since when? How would that even work? The president orders the NSA to generate a list of disagreeable film makers and journalists and passes it to the TSA and customs? Do you have any evidence for that claim at all?

> It wouldn’t be wise to talk about bombs near an airport, or tweet about killing the president when he’s visiting your city.

Those are not free speech issues. It is not illegal to talk about bombs at an airport or to threaten the president. Just because you shouldn't does mean you're not free - freedom from consequences isn't the same as freedom of action. Restricted speech is exceedingly rare and, to my knowledge, only applies to public safety (falsely yelling fire in a theatre) and inciting violence (rallying everyone to get weapons and go shoot cops)

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

#80

Post by mirimir »

astura wrote: post #70
promopacket wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's the redacted version.

No, it's not. Or at least, it contains ...

> 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.

> According to the agreement, filed in U.S. District Court, Balian agreed to cooperate with federal authorities by responding truthfully and completely in interviews and court proceedings. He is scheduled to be sentenced in September, when prosecutors are expected to recommend a reduced sentence.

And it doesn't contain the "corrections" ...

> 5:15 p.m.: This story has been updated to remove references from the filed plea agreement, which was ordered sealed by a judge but publicly available Friday on the federal court’s online document database. The changes were made to comply with an order issued Saturday by a U.S. federal judge. The Times plans to challenge the order.

> 3:40 p.m.: This article was updated with a statement from the Glendale police chief.

> This article was originally published at 10:55 a.m.

Post reply on HN