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

#161

Post by astura » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 3:14 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #80

astura wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Dis…

Weird, that's not what it gave me when I clicked originally, I doubled checked. I see it now though.

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

#162

Post by 21 » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #158

lisper wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all child rapists are the same. If an eighteen-year-old has consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old, technically they have "raped a child". And yes, over zealous prosecutors do prosecute cases like this. There are people on the offender registry convicted of distributing child pornography because they sent someone a nude selfie when they were a teenager.

Not according to any reasonable interpretation of raped a child. You aren't the only one who assumed I would use the braindead US legal definition, so sorry for for not being clearer. But if somebody rapes a five year old I don't want to work with them, don't want to be near them, etc. There are crimes that are impossible to rehabilitate from.

But for that you would need to read the actual case, you couldn't just look at the label "convicted for child rape"

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

#163

Post by lisper » Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

21 wrote: post #162

tomjen3 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not according to any reasonable interpretation of raped a child. You aren't the only one who assumed I would use the braindead US legal definition, so sorry for for not being clearer. But if somebody rapes a five year old I don't want to work with them, don't want to be near them, etc. There are crimes that are impossible to rehabilitate from.

But for that you would need to read the actual case, you couldn't just look at the label "convicted for child rape"

Exactly. Most employers hear that you're on the registry and stop their inquiries at that point. The registry tars everyone on it with the same brush.

I'm not saying you would fail to make the distinction. But many people do, and many essentially innocent people suffer, and IMHO society as a whole, suffer as a result.