121–130 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So long as you're not reporting on matters of "national security", the U.S. actually has a decent track record with that ...
Reporters Without Borders puts the US at 46th position in their Press Freedom Index. An awful lot of things can be turned into "national security" issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And over time society will recognise that prejudging applicants based on irrelevant crap unearthed on the Internet isn't the best business strategy, so the original problem diminishes.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, you kill me ... I needed a good laugh. Reality check. Look at the prevalence of tattoos. Think that the prejudice against that has diminished? As far as I can tell, it's gotten worse. Before, tattoos were sufficiently rare that if somebody had one who was applying for a job where they were unusual, they generally were given the benefit of the doubt (ex-serviceman, gang member who go…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reporters Without Borders puts the US at 46th position in their Press Freedom Index. An awful lot of things can be turned into "national security" issues.
It's 32 now. So in other words, the year of the Snowden leaks actually improved their relative position in the press freedom index.
"We regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google: [one url with a post in my site] For more information, see www.google .com/policies/faq/?hl=en
The post in my site that was blocked by Google had only some catalog information about a car dealer in Netherlands and I could not understand why it was removed by Google search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really see how it would be contempt of court for Google to shut down its European servers and redirect all its European domains to go to Google.com. It would be a lot of other things, but I don't think it would be contempt of court.
> I don't really see how it would be contempt of court Well I do, and I can guarantee you that courts would see it too. In Europe, laws generally aren't to be interpreted by the letter. You can't game them with technicalities (well it depends, but in this case it's quite clear).
That's a very general statement and generally untrue (although you are in this case, partially correct). Acts and statutes are always interpreted by the letter, you are perhaps confusing this by making a comparison of these EU statutes with common law or jus commune as that is interpreted by "the spirit of the law" (usually informed by case-law, constitutions etc. depending on the country).
Acts and statutes are not common law (or natural law), and these EU measures are enabled by acts and statutes in each separate EU member state. So they are indeed interpreted to the letter as these acts must be implemented in states with codified constitutions (where one court has supreme interpretation of a constitution and must apply EU law with direct effect, although the big ones haven't done this till recently) and ones without (where there is an indirect effect of law). This is known as the Supremacy Doctrine[1]. The only exception is when the interpretation comes from the European Court of Justice.
The part you are absolutely right about, is that in this specific case, interpretation will not be up to each member state as this amendment was straight from the European Court of Justice. Generally, however, as far as "European law" goes, until we have an actual constitution or become an actual federation, your general statement is untrue most of the time (lets not forget the EU is enabled by treaties and if you don't think the letter matters in a treaty then I have come contracts I'd love you to sign...)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_%28European_Union_la...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 32 now. So in other words, the year of the Snowden leaks actually improved their relative position in the press freedom index.
I'm getting 46 from this page, in the graph and in the text http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php - where are you seeing 32? I vaguely recall it being around 30 last year.
How often is it updated?
This is a great example of the Streisand effect [0] -- trying to hide something draws attention to it. Specifically, I now know about Stan O'Neal, who "was forced out of Merrill [Lynch] after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made." Google may no longer be showing the original result, but now I see the reason for the original article and the fact that he wanted it hidden. [0]…
Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm getting 46 from this page, in the graph and in the text http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php - where are you seeing 32? I vaguely recall it being around 30 last year.
From here: http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html which is 2013. Since the page lacked a 2014, I assumed that because the year wasn't out they hadn't changed it. How often is it updated?
I like that they told the author that his article would no longer be viewable. If that's the case, and the 'removal' is not secret, then they could (should?) totally make available a separate database of articles that people have asked to be removed. Basically, the original article may be old (or theoretically irrelevant) but the fact that someone asked for it to be removed is very new and not at all irrelevant. It w…
The Guardian reported[1] that they were at least considering a notice at the bottom of a search result page that had a result removed, like they do with DMCA requests. If that's the case, hopefully they can do what they do with DMCA notices, and link to a copy of the actual takedown request (which would include a link or links to what was taken down). ChillingEffects.org could start a new section for right to be forg…
http://searchengineland.com/right-to-be-forgotten-notices-19...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the problem is that what is a "matter of national security" in practice is whatever the government says it is. So this exception is enough to effectively eviscerate the freedom of the press.
Nobody got in trouble in the U.S. for reporting on/distributing the Snowden leaks. There weren't any newspaper raids. Nobody was asked to "keep quiet". Anyone who did censor did so out of mutual interest. Press freedoms have not been eviscerated here. It's a trendy narrative, but in reality you have enormous freedom to distribute content which was illegally obtained as per the Pentagon Papers cases and others. The wo…