Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

imediaethics.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#41

Post by danso »

cronix wrote: post #20
nostromo wrote: post #12

An additional solution would be to stop publishing names for suspects entirely. Wait until the person is convicted to release the name.

They have already been prosecuted and convicted. You can't "expunge" a crime off your criminal record unless you've been convicted of it. It's ok to publish people who have been convicted of a crime. That's public info. It's NOT ok, to still have it published when it's expunged from your record. The article is specifically discussing expunged crimes.

That said, u/nostromo raises a good tangent. When I worked at my college newspaper, which was before Google had become so dominant a fact of day-to-day life, there was no second thought about publishing the name, age, and address of suspects in the police blotter (the daily listing of suspects arrested, mostly for public intox). The age and address were part of the arrest record, and important to disambiguate between similarly-named people. Back then, it hadn't yet occurred to society how Google effectively made info permanently, globally, and efficiently searchable.

Nowadays, I think the status quo for college newspapers is to not print names: https://www.poynter.org/news/college-papers-dropping-arreste...

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#42

Post by ocdtrekkie »

hirundo wrote: post #10

The ‘right to be forgotten’ is backwards. Much better would be a 'right to remember'. The right to be forgotten is a positive right, in that it requires other people to take action (e.g. delist a story from Google) to fulfill it. A right to remember would be a negative right. Like a freedom of the press doesn't require the government to subsidize a printing press or equivalent, a right to remember would just mean tha…

You have a right to not be murdered (a negative right). But by granting you that right, the government takes away someone else's freedom (a positive right), specifically, their freedom to murder you.

Obviously, this is an extreme example, but the idea that "negative rights" are bad because they infringe on someone's "positive rights" makes no sense. You're ignoring the fact that the act of publishing information can cause harm to someone, and that we generally recognize that your rights do not include the right to harm others.

Also, your comment fails to recognize that Right To Be Forgotten is very clear on what can and should be forgotten, like false claims, which by news outlets "remembering" them, infringe on the individual being falsely accused.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#43

Post by ddmd1 »

piker wrote: post #37
cortesoft wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is always my argument against this sort of thing. Enforcing one person's right to be forgotten is infringing on someone else's right to remember. Say, for example, I get beat up by someone. They are convicted and go to jail, but then in 10 years time they get their record expunged. Am I no longer allowed to tell people about what happened? I should be allowed to tell my story. I should be allowed to tell pe…

It's not your right to dispense such justice--that in fact belongs to the state in a civilized society. I think this example proves the exact opposite of what you desire. Someone who has spent time in jail and had their record expunged 10 years later has been deemed by the state to have satisfied the burden of their offense, and, yes, their right to have their actions forgiven and forgotten should be at its zenith. […

US courts have not always agreed with that interpretation:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Hearst_Corporation

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#44

Post by pc86 »

cronix wrote: post #40
pc86 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but a news article saying you were arrested for something still happened, and is still factual.

The problem is you can legally say you were never convicted of that crime if it's expunged. If a background check is performed, it will not show up on your record, which will be contradictory if it's still in a newspaper article (or some other public source). It's a catch-22. An employer cannot legally use it against you. If they see it in print they can discriminate (illegally, but who would know) against you. If yo…

I'm talking about the arrest, plenty of news sources, especially local ones, will have an article saying so-and-so was arrested of such-and-such crime. Even if you're found not guilty through a trial the news article saying you were arrested will remain (because you were arrested). It would be the same after an expungement, articles citing the arrest can likely remain based on the fact that even if you were legally not convicted, you were still legally arrested (unless expungements cover that as well).

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#45

Post by Retric »

sk5t wrote: post #39
matt4077 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you're still allowed to tell people what happened... To understand why some people argue for such a right, you need to appreciate that a report of your crime being the #1 Google hit for a search of your name is fundamentally different than some old acquaintances knowing something. You cannot escape the former, you can not make amends with an archive as you can with people, etc. I know many people are reluct…

Are you proposing that the rule should be "of course you're still allowed to tell people what happened, but only if you do so inefficiently and with little effect"? What if the top hit is a personal website describing the crime and its effects, rather than a town newspaper--should Google knock that personal website off the front page?

Why let people out of prison? What's the point of temporary incarceration without any form of rehabilitation?

Presumably, if society is willing to let people return it must gain from their return. That cost benefit trade-off is the exact same one that occurs with your website example.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#46

Post by sctb »

comyesa wrote: post #6

Rehabilitation doesn't always work. I doubt a sexual degenerate can be "cured". It's okay if they stay in prison just to be punished and are taken apart from society. It's okay if they can never be around children.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18257906 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#47

Post by coding123 »

piker wrote: post #37
cortesoft wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is always my argument against this sort of thing. Enforcing one person's right to be forgotten is infringing on someone else's right to remember. Say, for example, I get beat up by someone. They are convicted and go to jail, but then in 10 years time they get their record expunged. Am I no longer allowed to tell people about what happened? I should be allowed to tell my story. I should be allowed to tell pe…

It's not your right to dispense such justice--that in fact belongs to the state in a civilized society. I think this example proves the exact opposite of what you desire. Someone who has spent time in jail and had their record expunged 10 years later has been deemed by the state to have satisfied the burden of their offense, and, yes, their right to have their actions forgiven and forgotten should be at its zenith. […

That downvote with no comment thing is because they are trying to practice THEIR right to be forgotten.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#48

Post by vokep »

hirundo wrote: post #10

The ‘right to be forgotten’ is backwards. Much better would be a 'right to remember'. The right to be forgotten is a positive right, in that it requires other people to take action (e.g. delist a story from Google) to fulfill it. A right to remember would be a negative right. Like a freedom of the press doesn't require the government to subsidize a printing press or equivalent, a right to remember would just mean tha…

Not sure why everyone is just following with that terminology - positive/negative rights. All rights are 'negative rights'. What you're calling positive rights are in fact privileges.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#49

Post by kenjackson »

justin66 wrote: post #34

This is not the strangest self-censorship cleveland.com has engaged in. The strangest I'm aware of is publishing otherwise full physical descriptions of wanted criminal suspects while omitting their race.

If you have a full physical description then isn’t race redundant?

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#50

Post by true_religion »

cortesoft wrote: post #21
mc32 wrote: post #7

I’d like to see a codified system where elsctronic docs and records must have timestamps and certain kinds of content must get “forgotten” de-indexed, over time. Midemeanor mentions get de-indexed afer x-years, felonies y-years, murders and the sort, never. Obviously this would require refinement. That said, someone could resurrect one of these records and reset the clock, but being derivative, the click would have t…

Not even sure how draconian enforcement would work, unless you forced every country to do the same. I could just set up a service that makes a copy of every document/record that is set to be deleted, and host it in a country that doesn't have that rule.

You could do that, and US lawmakers will likely get lobbied to just block your site. Which is fair.
Post reply on HN