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

'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#41

Post by ocdtrekkie »

guelo wrote: post #30
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is still an insane ruling by the U.S. that has no reasonable force of law. The top court of Canada, the highest judiciary entity, has said that the results must be delisted. Nobody can overrule the Canadian court's ruling on this, especially not an American court. In order to be in compliance with Canadian law, the results must be delisted, and as a company operating in Canada, Google must comply with Canadian l…

Imagine Europe's high court says Google must not do what the Canadian court told them to do. Now what?

Presumably they would comply with one, and not with the other. And they'd in turn, face any punishment determined by the one they failed to uphold, up to, and including cessation of all of their business and seizure of their assets in the country they did not uphold the law.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#42

Post by fucking_tragedy »

curt15 wrote: post #4

What prevents China from similarly demanding Apple to de-list apps from non-Chinese app stores that mention Tiananmen Square?

Up until recently, the Taiwanese flag emoji would crash Chinese iPhones[1].

> "Basically, Apple added some code to iOS with the goal that phones in China wouldn't display a Taiwanese flag," Wardle says, "and there was a bug in that code."

However, I don't believe it is fair to compare state censorship with an individual whose online reputation could prevent them from eating or having a roof over their head.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/apple-china-censorship-bug-iphon...

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#43

Post by lifeisstillgood »

true_religion wrote: post #19
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is still an insane ruling by the U.S. that has no reasonable force of law. The top court of Canada, the highest judiciary entity, has said that the results must be delisted. Nobody can overrule the Canadian court's ruling on this, especially not an American court. In order to be in compliance with Canadian law, the results must be delisted, and as a company operating in Canada, Google must comply with Canadian l…

I think you may be missing something. Google is arguing that the Canadian ruling cannot be applied in the US. They will censor whatever they need to on their canadian assets, but if you connect to a US google server from Canada, they shouldnt be obliged to censor.

I guess I had not realised that Google.com is basically exporting - i think that despite everything, forcing the internet into the box of nation states is a bad thing.

The current laws do not fix the problem - but it is hard to see which ones will

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#44

Post by megous »

curt15 wrote: post #24

>That judgment allowed European citizens to ask search engines to remove links to “inadequate, irrelevant or ... excessive” content The critical terms "inadequate", "irrelevant" are dangerously subjective. What's irrelevant to one person may be of great interest to another.

It is obvious that people have conflictng desires, but so what? What's your conclusion from that?

"Unrestricted" freedom of speech favours just one side.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#45

Post by ihattendorf »

pixl97 wrote: post #34
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I prefer the European less-expansive version of free speech, over the American version where burning a cross next to an African-American family's house is protected free speech[1]. The trouble with strong 1A supporters is that they pretend like the free speech restrictions in the US are not both arbitrary and frequently racially biased due to the slow functioning of the justice system. You cannot shout fire in…

>You cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre, Um, Yes, you can shout fire in a crowded theate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Sure you can, but unless there's actually a fire or you truly believe there is a fire, you might be charged with something like 'inducing panic'[0]. It's the same as calling in a false bomb threat.

[0] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.31

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#46

Post by pixl97 »

ihattendorf wrote: post #45
pixl97 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre, Um, Yes, you can shout fire in a crowded theate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Sure you can, but unless there's actually a fire or you truly believe there is a fire, you might be charged with something like 'inducing panic'[0]. It's the same as calling in a false bomb threat. [0] http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.31

Which is because of the effects of what you said...

If no one panics, then you generally don't get charged with anything, except possibly trespassing.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#47

Post by swebs »

conception wrote: post #35

I haven't been able to think of a middle ground but there seems like there should be between "I can get rid of embarrassing things as a public official or celebrity on the internet" and "I rather not have websites like mylife.com, doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse." Curious if HN has any ideas how to approach that issue?

>doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse

Why should that information be protected in the first place? It's not much different than a phone book. Your full name, address, phone number, etc are all linked to your identity. Once someone has one, it becomes nearly impossible to stop them from getting the others.

The problem with doxxing is that it usually comes with a threat of violence from ideological opponents. I think what many people should be fighting for is the right to anonymity. For your identity to never be revealed in the first place. Free speech can't truly be expressed if having the "wrong" opinion leads to some wingnut smashing your head with a bike lock.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#48

Post by yifanl »

My personal issue with unilateral free speech is that it's kind of self-defeating.

To my understanding, the essential value of free speech is that it protects the unpopular voices... but because of how the system works, the ones without power have substantially more difficulty having their ideas heard. Unilateral free speech makes it impossible for anything except the popular opinions to be voiced without being drowned out.

I can't think of a solution to this, unfortunately.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#49

Post by asr »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #41
guelo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine Europe's high court says Google must not do what the Canadian court told them to do. Now what?

Presumably they would comply with one, and not with the other. And they'd in turn, face any punishment determined by the one they failed to uphold, up to, and including cessation of all of their business and seizure of their assets in the country they did not uphold the law.

Note that this is not merely theoretical, or unique to the internet:

https://m.dw.com/en/eu-to-reactivate-blocking-statute-agains...

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#50

Post by [deleted] »

swebs wrote: post #47
conception wrote: post #35

I haven't been able to think of a middle ground but there seems like there should be between "I can get rid of embarrassing things as a public official or celebrity on the internet" and "I rather not have websites like mylife.com, doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse." Curious if HN has any ideas how to approach that issue?

>doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse Why should that information be protected in the first place? It's not much different than a phone book. Your full name, address, phone number, etc are all linked to your identity. Once someone has one, it becomes nearly impossible to stop them from getting the others. The problem with doxxing is that it usually comes…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN