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

101–110 of 163 posts

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

#101

Post by AmericanChopper »

icebraining wrote: post #99
AmericanChopper wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Yes they have. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5715727/Police-threa... https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/201... 2. The restrictions on speech in the US mostly relate to other crimes, like inciting violence. You can’t be arrested in the US for saying something that’s too offensive (like they do in the UK every day).

Section 127 prohibits "sending by public communication network an offensive / indecent / obscene / menacing message / matter". It's unspecified in that article how many were arrested specifically for offensive messages (as opposed, say, to menacing ones).

Menacing like... mocking the police? Threatening behaviour is already a crime in the UK. Section 127 ONLY serves to criminalize any behaviour deemed offensive by the state.

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

#102

Post by AmericanChopper »

icebraining wrote: post #100
AmericanChopper wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not silly at all, because that is literally a law in Canada. There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US. Any restrictions on speech are restrictions on other crimes. You can’t incite violence for example. If your straw man of what free speech means we’re true, then a gang leader could freely sit behind a desk and direct others to commit crime on his behalf all day because all he’s doing is speaking…

There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US. That's not true: see "seven dirty words".

The Supreme Court ruling on that case held that broadcasting content into people’s homes is materially different to public speech.

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

#103

Post by icebraining »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #102
icebraining wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US. That's not true: see "seven dirty words".

The Supreme Court ruling on that case held that broadcasting content into people’s homes is materially different to public speech.

So if the UK courts rule that posting on Twitter/FB is materially different then it's all fine?

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

#104

Post by bryanrasmussen »

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.

do defamation laws forbid you from defaming someone, and force the removal of all defamatory material from the public record? Or do they fine you if you defame them and enjoin you to publically state you were wrong?

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

#105

Post by AmericanChopper »

icebraining wrote: post #103
AmericanChopper wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court ruling on that case held that broadcasting content into people’s homes is materially different to public speech.

So if the UK courts rule that posting on Twitter/FB is materially different then it's all fine?

If twitter stopped operating on the internet, and started terrestrially broadcasting their content into people’s homes then you might have a point.

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

#106

Post by jessriedel »

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?

Can't tell if your question is rhetorical or not, but: Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is different because it (1) is actually false, (2) leads to an immediate and unambiguous risk of life, and (3) is not potentially of political importance.

The first is the most important in the US for free-speech issues. For instance, "it's true" is considered an absolute defense in cases of slander/libel, no matter how mean spirited or damaging.

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

#107

Post by vorpalhex »

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?

Side note - "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not persay illegal, and was actually used in a free speech trial against a man who wrote anti-draft pamphlets.

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

#108

Post by wool_gather »

kryogen1c wrote: post #79
confounded wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is not illegal to [...] threaten the president

It's generally illegal to threaten anyone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#United_States

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

#109

Post by wool_gather »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #67
FireBeyond wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Absolutely true. Parent may just not understand all the details. One thing that can be slightly confusing w/r/t copyright and recorded music is that the there's a rule that automatically grants a license to produce a new recording of a piece, without the original author or the copyright holder even being consulted. This is called a "mechanical license"; you can perform your own version of any musical work as long as you pay the fee and royalties for it.

That said, I believe there are still provisions for something like "moral rights" where the original author could sue to block publication.

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

#110

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

> Why can't this be made illegal if yelling "fire" in a theater is?

Yelling “fire” in a theater is not illegal. It was asserted to be the kind of thing the government might permissible prohibit in dicta (which are not themselves authoritative) illustrating the decision rule, without any citation to supporting precedent, in a later-overturned case in which the court allowed what is now recognized as an imperssible restriction on core political speech.

Post reply on HN