Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by chii » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

eli wrote: post #120

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 appl…

> I cannot withdraw an offer simply because the applicant has a record.

how is this proven? If you fired an employee after a "while", may be siting business reasons, how does the employee prove that you checked the criminal record, and then that information is what led to the termination?

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

#122

Post by chii » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #90

kryogen1c wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? >…

How would that even work? This works through a mechanism called a "terror watch list" For example, imagine you're a Youtuber and you make a serious, fair film about the Israel-Palestine conflict. You successfully get access to senior people on both sides. Except Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and to get that access you've visited online forums about the organisation, contacted people in the US associated with it,…

I feel that a citizen should be able to appeal being on the terror watch list (or any watch list for that matter).

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

#123

Post by chii » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:10 PM UTC

omeid2 wrote: post #88

PinkMilkshake wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crea…

I understand, my point is that freedom of speech is complicated and not so black and white.

Yep. A lot of people assume freedom of speech means they are allowed to say anything they want in a public forum, and nobody are allowed to stop them. But in actuality, freedom of speech means you are free from being censored by the gov't, but only the gov't. A private forum (such as a site, or newspaper) can freely censor anyone's speech if they choose to use their forum/platform/print.

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

#124

Post by tony101 » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:12 PM UTC

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? >…

> "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?"

"We’ve learned about this fishing expedition through documents we obtained in a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit filed on Poitras’s behalf to find out why she was constantly being stopped by federal agents during her travels. Border agents detained Poitras at airports over 50 times from 2006 to 2012. The detentions began after she directed and released documentary films about post-9/11 life in Iraq and Yemen that challenged the U.S. government’s narrative about the war on terror."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/government-documents-s...

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

#125

Post by chii » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:14 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #93

maxpupmax wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If judges make decisions which don't represent the mandate of their constituents, they can/should be removed. This collapses separation of powers, is against the idea that "law" and "politics" are separate things, and paves the way for removing judges who don't support the views of the Party.

Some judges in the USA is elected (while some are appointed for life). See https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-are-judges-s...

But i do believe that judges should be appointed by a panel of existing judges, and once appointed, can only be removed by said panel (and not the gov't).

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

#126

Post by organsnyder » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:14 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #121

eli wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 appl…

> I cannot withdraw an offer simply because the applicant has a record. how is this proven? If you fired an employee after a "while", may be siting business reasons, how does the employee prove that you checked the criminal record, and then that information is what led to the termination?

At that point, you've spent a fair amount of money onboarding the employee, and they'd likely be eligible to file for unemployment benefits. Even if there are no further repercussions under the "ban the box" regulations, it still tips the scale—at least a bit—toward reducing the friction for those with criminal records to obtain employment.

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

#127

Post by hobs » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #121

eli wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 appl…

> I cannot withdraw an offer simply because the applicant has a record. how is this proven? If you fired an employee after a "while", may be siting business reasons, how does the employee prove that you checked the criminal record, and then that information is what led to the termination?

They dont. Employees are continually screwed over by employers, and even so most people work in Employment At Will states - so its even harder to prove it was anything.

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

#128

Post by eli » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:19 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #121

eli wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 appl…

> I cannot withdraw an offer simply because the applicant has a record. how is this proven? If you fired an employee after a "while", may be siting business reasons, how does the employee prove that you checked the criminal record, and then that information is what led to the termination?

You prove it in court just like any other employment discrimination case. The law doesn't need to catch 100% of lawbreakers to work effectively.

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

#129

Post by hobs » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

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? >…

> Just because you shouldn't does mean you're not free - freedom from consequences isn't the same as freedom of action.

That exactly defines why you are not free to do it. - let's reword that sentence and test again -

"Just because you shouldn't murder someone doesnt mean you are not free, freedom from consequences isn't the same as freedom of action."

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

#130

Post by hobs » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

_khau wrote: post #92

kryogen1c wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? >…

> 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? Actually yes. Just look at the McCarthy era witch hunts against 'communists' in Hollywood. The FBI and CIA were involved in drawing up the watch lists.

This should not be downvoted, this is a part of shared American history, and there are terror watch lists and no fly lists to this day.