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

111–120 of 163 posts

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

#111

Post by dragonwriter »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #84
matthewmacleod wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. No they haven’t 2. There are limitations of free speech in every country, including the US. It’s a matter of where the line is drawn.

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).

> You can’t be arrested in the US for saying something that’s too offensive

You clearly are unfamiliar with the entire domain of obscenity law not in the US, which is exactly about defining what is so offensive as to be outside the scope of First Amendment protection.

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

#112

Post by dragonwriter »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #85
matthewmacleod wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that definition is typically only used by people who are more interested in “offence” than “freedom of speech”. We should obviously all have the freedoms to be offensive, because like you say, offence is essentially arbitrary. But we draw limits on that freedom all the time - for safety, libel, or public order reasons, for example. The real argument should be about where that line is drawn, and not those silly…

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…

> It’s not silly at all, because that is literally a law in Canada.

Except it's literally not; that was a deliberate misrepresentation popularized by people like Jordan Peterson. [0]

> There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US

Incorrect, see literally the entire field of obscenity law.

[0] http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...

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

#113

Post by Larrikin »

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?

Do you believe it should be legal for companies to have terms that prevent you from working at a competing company in a similar industry. It is illegal to share much of the information you learn there as well. The big difference is that you aren't meticulously saving every piece of information for easy access at your new company and that you know you're breaking the law if you did share that information. Simply make it illegal to use the data after a certain amount of time and the problem will fix itself.

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

#115

Post by thinkmassive »

billpg wrote: post #96

I look forward to hearing how blockchain technology could have prevented this.

Well the info could be hosted on IPFS, which eventually could be monetized by something like Filecoin. I suspect you’re trolling, but decentralized technologies certainly will play a part in publicly disseminating information in the future.

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

#116

Post by dsfyu404ed »

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 defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth.

You can't be criminally prosecuted for hate speech (unless the prosecutor stretches other laws to cover your "hate speech") or most instances of defamation (except in certain cases on a state by state basis[1]). You can be sued but that's a civil matter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Criminal_defamation...

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

#117

Post by HelloNurse »

danso wrote: post #11
Bizarro wrote: post #2

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

IIRC, federal judges can be removed by impeachment. Very unlikely that this judge or any other would be impeached just for a controversial ruling, though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge#...

It isn't merely a controversial ruling, it might be easily construed as a favor to friends (police and/or the clerks who published the document by mistake).

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

#118

Post by vonmoltke »

vidarh wrote: post #78
chrisseaton wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

That's fine, but this thread is specifically talking about the US, where all court records are public documents unless specifically sealed by a judge, with justification that can be challenged in court.

Now, publishing expunged records in the US is morally dubious. I don't know the case law in this area, though, so I don't know where it stands on legal grounds.

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

#119

Post by kro39nxkdk »

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…

Yeah but it hasn’t over turned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois

As usual, it depends on how you measure

It’s a hodge podge in the US

This all says nothing about the tacit control given to corps to control the work we undertake, thus controlling conversations we are allowed 40+ hours of week (the bulk of our waking life).

Or how Citizens United is enabling purchasing and pushing speech of a certain kind which we can see modifies people.

“Who controls the past controls the future.”

“The best books tell you what you know already.”

“War is peace.”

American is living those quotes and has been for decades.

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

#120

Post by eli »

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.…

> 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.

Yes, these laws exist in many places in the US often under the name "ban the box"

Here in DC, it is illegal for me to obtain an applicant's criminal record until after I've made an offer and I cannot withdraw an offer simply because the applicant has a record.

I think SF and NYC have some version of this as well.

Post reply on HN