61–70 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty." If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.
Should be not , but , I believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huffington post Story http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/freedom-of-speech-cana... None of these would be Constitutional in the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada Duke Paper on comparing Free Speech in the US vs Canada http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... i can find more examples later if you want.
That does not support your claim Canada has no concept of freedom of speech in the Constitution.
Canada's "Free Speech" code is much weaker, to the point that is not a Free Speech Code..
Of course I am a free speech absolutist so...
This wouldn't be the first time a government is requiring Google to modify their search results. This case parallels the "right to be forgotten" cases brought against them by the EU several years ago. There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent. In the US, with the murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals occur…
People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty." If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.
Having an unbiased conduit is essential for the truth else the conduit for nearly all information in the world will say only what people with money and influence say is correct.
Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet.
The right to be forgotten is a cure worse than the disease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger question is if Canada can enforce their regressive idea of Free Expression on US Service providers simply because of their presence in Canada Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.
Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more immediate concerns tied to it). Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specifi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims a…
> but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person. You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.
False allegations are common enough that allegations shouldn't be reported until proven, but they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger question is if Canada can enforce their regressive idea of Free Expression on US Service providers simply because of their presence in Canada Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.
Canadian here. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your sweeping allegation regarding free expression? As it is, this just seems like some random stab that doesn't concern the topic at hand (which has far more immediate concerns tied to it). Section 1 of the Constitution of Canada (1982) outlines freedom of speech. Just about the only thing you can't do, outside of pursuing damages in the court system for specifi…
A standard example is that in Canada, a judge can impose publication bans on information presented in court. These bans can be temporary (don't report on the presented facts until the case is decided) or permanent (the rape victim may not be named).
In the USA such bans are unconstitutional. Therefore US media is allowed to report on details of Canadian cases that Canadian media can't.
My first exposure to the Internet was during the trial of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo and I well remember the arguments between Canadians upset that the case was being reported on against the judge's orders, and Americans who wondered what part of the phrase "free speech" the Canadians didn't get. Having just moved from Canada to the USA myself, it was a nice piece of culture shock.
A hypothetical: Company A is in country X and company B is in country Y. Country X declares on behalf of company A that company B be blocked from searches worldwide (including country Y). Country Y declares on behalf of company B that company B cannot be blocked from searches (at least in country Y). Who wins in the global context? Whichever can/will fine the most? Does this give benefits to the overly-regulating cou…
The bigger question is if Canada can enforce their regressive idea of Free Expression on US Service providers simply because of their presence in Canada Canada has no concept of the 1st amendment,Canada as all kinds of limits on Speech that will never be allowed under the US Constitution.
Regressive is an interesting choice of wording. Freedoms, as always, are relative -- the classic your right to swing your fist ends at my nose sort of thing. Canada has progressive notions of free speech that fully enables the overwhelming majority of speech, encoded in Charter of Rights. But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or threaten the president, you can't incite hate in Canada. Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection.
This wouldn't be the first time a government is requiring Google to modify their search results. This case parallels the "right to be forgotten" cases brought against them by the EU several years ago. There is a reason that civil liberties and human rights organizations like the ACLU are concerned about this precedent. In the US, with the murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals occur…
People in the US are not "found innocent," they are presumed innocent and found "not guilty." If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.
That is not the case. You are describing "found innocent." "Not guilty" is just that: the absence of having been found guilty of a crime.
In other words, legally that person has not been found to be guilty of murder, but they also have not been found to have not committed murder. Nothing has been found one way or the other.
Well that's terrifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims a…
> but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person. You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.
So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record?
> The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.
That's one potential danger. Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.