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

#141

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 3:32 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #138

logfromblammo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Your circle of acquaintances must be strongly against freedom of speech, then. You cannot create the Memory Hole by court order. LA Times has a constitutional right to print anything they obtain legally. They are not directly placing anyone's lives at risk by publishing. If anything, they could publish another article about how slipshod security practices in the court system leak sensitive information to the pub…

The "easy" way for cops, cop families, and normal people to be protected is to end the disastrous Drug War. It wouldn't matter if all police were paragons of virtue, applying enforcement rather than treatment to a drug problem is a sure way to end up with multiplied problems.

It is difficult to get someone to understand something when their livelihood depends on not understanding it.

Drug trade earns money; money buys guns and shooters; guns and shooters protect drug trade.

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

#142

Post by ars » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 3:38 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #48

ars wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the LA Times gets a pass Hu? The LA Times took it down. How is that "gets a pass"? The LA Times also acquired the information lawfully, Wikileaks did not.

The people at the LA times that published the information haven’t been forced to choose between exile in an embassy, and facing a kangaroo court, and also well-documented persecution via probably illegal psy-ops, falsified slanderous/libelous communications “from” trusted colleagues, etc, etc. Compared to wikileaks, they “got a pass”. It doesn’t make the mistreatment of the LA Times any better though.

Because they obeyed the court order and took it down, so obviously they didn't have to do any of that.

I really don't understand what you are expecting. If you disobey a court, you get punished. Why is that strange?

And the exile in an embassy thing was unrelated to any leaks, despite Assange desperately trying to make it as if it was.

Look, I supported Wikileaks goals at first, but then Assange tried to turn it into his personal PR firm, using the name "wiki" to try to make it as if it's some "for the public thing".

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

#143

Post by crankylinuxuser » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #139

consp wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as an example: We have that here (Netherlands). You are under no circumstances allowed to not hire someone because of past failures if the statue if limitation has expired or the sentence has been served. There might be restrictions on what you can do after you have served, but it is not up to the company to judge on this. This is one of the reasons the "right to be forgotten" exists. You can however request a "…

What is to stop me from not hiring someone based on his criminal background and just come up with a bogus excuse? Because frankly I wouldn't ever want to work with somebody who had raped a child.

That's a non-sequitor if Ive seen one.

Sure theres no argument with someone who aims at pre-pubescent children. But those laws have themselves been perverted so that even a single picture between 2 17 year olds is this horrible felony that ends up ruining 2 lives.

So yeah, its time to quit this Scarlet Letter for most "sex crimes" - cause its a gross miscalculation of justice and law.

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

#144

Post by jkaplowitz » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #77

jkaplowitz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If an employer* in NYC or Seattle tolerates one employee persistently and intentionally referring to another employee by the wrong pronoun, it violates their local discrimination laws just as much as in Quebec, with enforceable penalties to boot.

No, it's not criminal in either place, if it's not coupled with more. Another poster replied with a link debunking this myth as applied to Canada.

And yes, laws aimed at preventing a hostile work environment, even speech-based ones, have been held to be constitutional in the US.

For a US federal example, repeatedly targeting someone with racial slurs within a workplace* will also get you into punishable trouble.

*Yes, I know certain employers, like 2-person companies, are excluded from these laws. Doesn't change the general point.

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

#145

Post by jkaplowitz » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

wool_gather wrote: post #109

jkaplowitz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The US doesn't have a general concept of moral rights, though many countries do. Is there some moral right specifically applicable to those compulsory musical licenses?

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

#146

Post by JamesBarney » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #139

consp wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as an example: We have that here (Netherlands). You are under no circumstances allowed to not hire someone because of past failures if the statue if limitation has expired or the sentence has been served. There might be restrictions on what you can do after you have served, but it is not up to the company to judge on this. This is one of the reasons the "right to be forgotten" exists. You can however request a "…

What is to stop me from not hiring someone based on his criminal background and just come up with a bogus excuse? Because frankly I wouldn't ever want to work with somebody who had raped a child.

I think it's the same thing that prevents you from not hiring someone because of the color of their skin. You open yourself up to being sued. And if you paid an investigation company money in order to get a sealed criminal background on an individual and then don't hit them that's pretty good evidence you were using that as a hiring decision.

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

#147

Post by pm24601 » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #139

consp wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as an example: We have that here (Netherlands). You are under no circumstances allowed to not hire someone because of past failures if the statue if limitation has expired or the sentence has been served. There might be restrictions on what you can do after you have served, but it is not up to the company to judge on this. This is one of the reasons the "right to be forgotten" exists. You can however request a "…

What is to stop me from not hiring someone based on his criminal background and just come up with a bogus excuse? Because frankly I wouldn't ever want to work with somebody who had raped a child.

I am using 'X' to represent a conviction for a crime. I am using 'X' because I don't want anyone to think that I am condoning or justifying any particular crime.

1. How would someone else know that the person did X?

2. What if that crime had nothing had bearing on the position?

3. What about the concept of a sentence representing the 'complete payment to society'? Denying someone the ability to make a living turns a finite sentence into an indefinite sentence.

For me,

1. If someone was guilty of embezzlement, this would be relevant (positive or negative) if the position involving money handling (cashier, or accounting) - but not relevant if the position was social work.

2. If the person was guilty of stalking, a position that would allow access to customers' PII would be problematic.

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

#148

Post by pm24601 » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 5:21 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?

It prevents computer-based application filtering.

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

#149

Post by pm24601 » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

kro39nxkdk wrote: post #119

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…

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 cer…

I don't get why this was killed.

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

#150

Post by pm24601 » Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 5:25 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?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jul/14/citizenfour-dir...

"Citizenfour director Laura Poitras sues US over 'Kafkaesque harassment'

Film-maker whose documentary about Edward Snowden won an Oscar says she has been held for hours at a time by airport officials, told she was on a no-fly list and threatened with handcuffs for taking notes"