But not in the U.S. You’re citing a law in the U.K.
Try reading my whole previous post in context:
“It is already unlawful in the UK for the press to repeat information about “spent” convictions after they become spent. I believe that is also the case in the USA with sealed court documents, juvenile crime and such.”
Let me make it easier for you: there are two separate statements:
1/ It is already unlawful in the UK for the press to repeat information about “spent” convictions after they become spent.
2/ I believe that is also the case in the USA with sealed court documents, juvenile crime and such.
Both are true. There are limits on the transmission of true information in both the UK and USA which is the point I was making in reply to the original post:
“Originally Posted by Captain Amazing View Post
It seems like the ruling is even stranger than that. Because you have the situation where it’s legal for the press to print the story, but then after some time has passed, it becomes illegal for Google to index the story. So this is bizarre.”
The examples I give are cases where previous printable information becomes hidden from public view (Rehabilitation of Offenders, Juvenile Records, Sealed Court Documents, at a later date.) For instance in the USA case a report may be made when a juvenile is arrested, and brought to court, but may later be covered by laws protecting juvenile criminal activity.
Former juvenile offenders may be able to get a fresh start of sorts by filing a petition in court seeking expungement (sealing) of a juvenile court conviction. Expungement typically allows offenders to tell prospective employers, landlords, licensing agencies and others that they have never been arrested or convicted. However, expungement does not eliminate all the consequences of a juvenile court conviction. For example, even an expunged conviction can serve as a strike that produces harsher punishment under a state’s Three Strikes statute. (To learn more about juvenile offenses, see Juvenile Court: An Overview. To learn more about criminal records and expungement, see Expungement and Criminal Records. Also see Prior Convictions and the Job-Application Process.) There are many advantages to sealing your juvenile records. Read on to learn which juvenile records may be sealed, how to have them sealed, and what it means once those records are sealed.
The state should be the collective will of the people. But history shows us that the state tries and does usurp the will of the people. So we put limits on what the state can do. We must maintain freedom to speak and freedom of association by preventing the state from restricting them.
If something is published, then it’s public. If you don’t want to make something public, then don’t publish it. If someone publishes something false about you, then sue them for slander or libel. If someone uses published information to illegally discriminate against or otherwise harm you, then sue them for that.
Good governance is the wrong bar to restrict fundamental rights like speech and association.
The will of the people is not sufficient to override the human rights of individuals. No group of people, no matter how large the majority is, has the right to tell another person what they should know or not.
Democracy is a necessary part of having a free society, but it is not sufficient. A free society must also respect the rights of all individuals.
If you don’t want the public to know your sex life, don’t engage in it where the public can discover it. If you don’t want your criminal acts to be published, don’t get convicted in a public court of law.
I see no public interest in ever hiding criminal convictions. If the actions of our courts of law are no longer public, then I do see tyranny. Open courts are an essential part of a free society. We cannot allow the state to impose its laws in secret.
If we limit the publication of criminal convictions by making it hard for the public to discover them, the extra burden is disproportionately placed on those without the disposable time or money to do the necessary research. The rich will be able to afford overcoming the extra hurdles, while the poor will not have the means to access the public record.
By punishing the transgressor. The same way we punish any other harmful act. That’s how our criminal and civil court systems are designed to work. Suppressing information from the public does not help prevent deplorable acts. It gives the bad actors cover to hide in.
Yes the state does have an interest, and it is fulfilled by punishing those who libel others. And the punishment should be proportionate to the misdeed. If a falsely outed pedophile loses their job, then the libeler should be required to pay restitution equivalent to the lost compensation.
Please do not conflate the state with society. The state has a monopoly of force to enforce it laws. Society has the freedoms of speech and association to express its opprobrium. While the state ideally follows the will of society, it is not necessarily so. In fact, I expect that Americans from all parts of the political spectrum would agree that the state does not reflect society well.
Juvenile records are a different category.
No one cares who you sleep with (I don’t). Good governance involves restricting instances of censorship as much as possible. I acknowledge now and previously that there are situations where it may be appropriate - just that those should be rare. It’s a matter of principle. Tell me how allowing the KKK to march or NAMBLA to publish reading materials is important for good governance and you’ll have your answer.
Really? Because it seems like you’ve determined for yourself that transgressions by bureaucrats is of public interest, but the life of a second rate actress isn’t. Celebrities have a different expectation of privacy in the US, so the courts have already decided this, second rate or first rate actress, natch. Criminal records as well, unless circumstances warrant some kind of special treatment like children or other specific crimes.
In other words, your declarations of what is and what isn’t of public interest are not controlling in the least, as you acknowledge.
Of course it is - it is my opinion and all. It also happens to be consistent with the law in my country. (except maybe the sex life of random people - not sure who cares about that and that’s probably prohibited in some way).
(my bold)
Did this make sense to you? It’s subjective, but it’s objective too!
So you think that the barrier to entry for communicating isn’t low enough such that almost anyone can communicate in the public forum? Are you familiar with a site called www.youtube.com? It’s kind of obscure but I’m told that people can post videos to it.
Makes perfect sense. The juxtaposition of the two words was intentional. The general policy question of how to balance personal privacy against the public interest is a complicated one that necessarily involves subjective values. But it’s plainly obvious that the poster did not, in fact, address any of the issues raised in my specific examples.
That’s why I brought up those examples. You can argue ideological policy til you’re blue in the face and get nowhere. I wanted to show by specific example that insufficient privacy protection can lead to gross injustices.
That must be why all the billionaires and their PACs and the coal and oil companies have given up advertising on national television and now spend all their money competing with cat videos on YouTube! :rolleyes:
You’re again mentioning the risk of the state becoming oppressive as a motive, but again didn’t show in what way restricting the freedom to publish the kind of infos we’re discussing would create such a risk. Your last sentence amounts to “we must maintain freedom of speech because the state must not restrict it” which is circular reasoning.
I argue that most informations we’re talking about have no relationship whatsoever with preventing tyranny and are merely a “right to gossip” vs “right not to be harmed by gossip” issue.
And may I ask why you specifically choose these two examples as the only exceptions?
And there are plenty of truthful informations that could harm an individual psychologically or objectively. For instance, since it was the original issue, it’s pretty much certain that people knowing my criminal record will have bad consequences for me, like for instance not getting a job. Even in the worst cases (say, I raped a 6 year old), society might perfectly decide that I should get a clean start after my sentence and shouldn’t be harmed by making this sentencing public.
I wasn’t the one mentioning good governance. That was the argument used by the poster I was responding to. And he didn’t show that good governance required freedom of publishing informations about anything anymore than you showed it when you invoked the risk the state could usurp the will of the people.
It seems to me you’re both invocating a mantra (restriction to the freedom of speech = tyranny or bad governance) but both fail to show how, in fact it has such consequences.
That’s your opinion. I again don’t see the right to gossip as a fundamental human right. I can decide that publishing a picture of myself in a public place is an assault on my fundamental right to privacy. Or that the government keeping anything secret (say the details of military operations) is an assault on my fundamental right to know everything done by the governing body. Or that preventing me from shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is an assault on my fundamental right to speak freely. How is your pick more justified than mine?
I agree. The right to privacy, for instance, that you want to curtail, wannabe tyran! 
And if you don’t want your house to be burglarized, don’t forget to lock the door. You know perfectly well that people magazines, for instance, go to extreme lenghts to get “informations” or pictures. Again, I’ve no issue with restricting their publication. I believe in a right to privacy. You don’t, but still haven’t shown how allowing you to know about my sex life is a greater social good than protecting my privacy.
Imposing the law in secret isn’t the same thing at all as forbidding the publication of a criminal record 30 years after the fact, or after the perp has served his sentence or whatever. At the contrary, if you think about it, both are intended to protect the interest of the same individual. Forbidding secret trials when he’s accused, forbiding the disclosure of his record after he served his sentence.
Of course, that’s not the same objective that it’s served. But like invocations of bad governance or state tyranny, you invoke as a justification for your opinion a big issue of freedom…that is completely unrelated! Forbidding the publishing of a past criminal record in no way allows the state to conduct secret trials.
And finally, you don’t see any public interest in hiding past criminal convictions, but it’s a matter of opinion. People might disagree and believe that a criminal should benefit from a clean start after having served his sentence.
That’s true, but then so what? Should poor people have free access to “public investigators” to be informed about whatever they want to know too? What about people who are too poor to buy a paper or own a TV set? Should people magazines be a public and free service?
If we take as granted that privacy should be protected, criminal records not disclosed, etc…, then surely, raising the bar to get access to such informations is a good thing even if we can’t totally prevent the most dedicated to find out. If I’m a former male prostitude, it’s likely that I would prefer my coworkers or potential employers to have to hire a private investigator to find out than to just have to google my name.
Sure, it does. If you do not publish the names and address of pedophiles (whether they actually are or not), they are significantly less likely to be lynched.
And again, what is your argument showing that only libel should be forbidden, that doing so it doesn’t put freedom at risk, while publishing a harmful truth should be completely free and forbidding it would put freedom at risk?
A rightfully outed pedophile also was harmed by losing his job. It isn’t obvious to me he shouldn’t get compensated. he already paid for his crime, and losing any job he can get in the future certainly wasn’t part of the sentence nor it is in my opinion a good thing.
So, you have in fact no issue with forbidding and punishing the publishing of an information that has harmful consequences on an individual in certain circumstances (false accusations of pedophilia), which means to me that you don’t believe, in fact, that restricting this kind of speech is really harmful for society, or put our freedoms at risk or whatever. You are perfectly willing to say “stating that X is a pedophile can be forbidden in some circumstances”.
So, you agree that no threat on fundamental rights, no risk of state oppression is involved is not being allowed to publish “X is a pedophile”. You just don’t agree with people who think it shouldn’t be published, even if true, after whatever number of years (note that obviously this also protect a bank teller who shoplifted candies 30 years ago, or a politician who smoked a joint 30 years ago).
But in this case, it seems that privacy laws in western Europe do reflect well society’s will.
And has to the importance of freedom of speech wrt express opprobrium about the state, again : how does publishing about my sex life of former convictions serve this purpose?
Really? And can I know why exactly they are? If “no group of people, no matter how large the majority is, has the right to tell another person what they should know or not.”, as you wrote, then surely, nobody has the right to tell me I shouldn’t know all the details of the rape of the underage girl? And the name, picture, and address of the underage alleged perp?
And no more argument about the state putting us all at risk by conducting secret trials, either?
Again, despite making grand statement about fundamental rights and freedoms, you’re perfectly willing to grant exceptions, and decide that a 17 yo should have his record kept confidential, but a 19 yo shouldn’t.
It shows that it’s only a matter of what you think is best for society in your opinion, in a specific context, not some sort of absolute principle that can only be infringed upon at great risk for our liberty, as some of you like to pretend.
I was answering in general about privacy laws and restrictions to the freedom of the press, not specifically to the issue mentioned in the OP.
In fact, I’m not convinced that google, being a mere indexer, should be in any way responsible for the content it gives links to. I would have to read the arguments of the court.
That free speech is a fundamental right and a net positive is a matter of first principles. It could be a cultural thing, but that idea is on pretty solid footing in the US.
Gossip is ill defined. That’s why libel is mentioned. Libel is well defined. Once you get into areas like ‘that is gossip, but this is not’ that is a situation where broadly interpreting free speech avoids picking and choosing. Again, we tolerate the KKK marching, NAMBLA publishing, and all sorts of other crap speech that is abhorrent. But as a matter of principle these must not be prohibited because as a matter of first principles free speech is a fundamental right and is a net positive to society.
I’m not one of those anti-goverment types but let’s not forget that there are times when the collective will of the people can be pretty darn evil. Here in the United States the collective will of the people gave us the Black Codes of the 19th century for example. So while the state might not be some independent evil force looking down on people it would be shortsighted not to recognize that sometimes individuals do need to be protected from the collective will of the people.
Or as I like to put it, two wolves and a sheep don’t get to vote on what’s for dinner.
Demonstrate it. Show me how the fact that we have access to someone’s criminal record is a major safeguard against tyranny.
Like previous posters, you’re calling to great principles but not explaining in what way they’re impacted by specific restrictions. In my opinion, you have this idea firmly ingrained that a freedom of speech as large as possible is very important to prevent tyranny or whatever, and have made of it an article of faith, without seriously considering it. If it weren’t the case, someone could tell me how access to boob pictures taken by paparazzi is saving our democracies.
And how do you propose to provide that protection? With “free speech”? The entire Bill of Rights had been in force for three-quarters of a century by the time the Black Codes were enacted. It did nothing to stop it. You know what ultimately did curtail southern racism? Government. It’s astounding that you think that particular example proves any kind of point about free speech or the perils of government when in fact it proves the exact opposite.
The greatest risk in a democracy isn’t the government reflecting the will of the people, but the government reflecting the will of powerful vested interests. Ironically, the latter is exactly what you get from a slavish, purist, absolutist dedication to the ideology of absolute free speech – and then the reaction to this dysfunction is to distrust government on general principle and cling even more tightly to the precise ideological absolutism that caused the dysfunction in the first place! Amazing!
Personal information privacy isn’t at odds with the values of a free society, it IS a fundamental value of a free society. The only argument against it comes from fanatical ideological absolutism.
I’m not claiming that access to someone’s criminal record is a safeguard against tyranny.
Public access to the criminal justice system is one method by which the people can check against some of the abuses of their government. If the results of the criminal justice system were able to be shielded from public view, then society would be less able to evaluate the merits or demerits of such a system. In addition, if the justice system were to be operating in a way contrary to the public interest then there would be no ability to discover it. (think why we still have press at executions).
Do you understand what first principles are? Can you answer the question as to why you think marches by the KKK and publications of NAMBLA are tolerated? Can you address this so I can assess where you’re coming from?
Seeing as how the Black Codes were enforced from 1877 until about 1965 you’ll excuse me if I can’t help but view it as an excellent example of the perils of the collective will of the people. That Jim Crow’s back was eventually broken by the Federal Government is great but it doesn’t change the fact that the collective will of the people can be evil at times.
And the issue isn’t hiding the judicial process, or the execution of the sentence. So, this argument isn’t relevant.
Because people should be free to express opinions? Checking on my criminal record or on my naked pictures has nothing altogether to do with that.
Again, I’m facing arguments (tyranny, good governance, publicity of trials, freedom of expression,…) that have no bearing on what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the extent to which you should be allowed to publish and/or have access to informations about me that most people would consider of a private nature. I wish that some arguments would be actually related to that.
And in fact no, I didn’t know what “first principle” mean. Discovering that it’s an a priori assumption doesn’t really help with the argument that such a principle should be strictly adhered to.
When you have to start arguing against the foundational principle of democracy, maybe it’s time to step back and acknowledge your argument’s intellectual bankruptcy. Most of us feel that democracy – not theocracy, dictatorship, or the divine right of kings – is the best rational basis for governance in modern society. Nor does any rational society endorse the idea that any right must always be absolute. And the fact that the federal government eventually enacted civil rights laws is not merely “great” or somehow incidental, but a direct and fundamental refutation of the example that you mistakenly thought supported your point. You seem to be struggling with some convoluted, confused non sequitur to a discussion about privacy and freedom of speech.
If it can’t be printed, discussed, or indexed in a search, it seems very similar to hiding the judicial process. I understand you don’t believe this is relevant. It is.
Speech is speech. The principle of free speech is content neutral. Once free speech is contingent on content it is no longer free. This is why the types of speech that are actually censored or prohibited in the US are so narrow. It is precisely to avoid the appearance or practice of prohibiting speech that some group of people do not like. Unpopular speech is the precise reason that protection of speech is necessary.
I don’t know your background at all but it may be a US thing. 1st amendment and all that.
That’s a hell of a nice straw man you’ve constructed there and you’ve done a masterful job of taking it apart. I don’t recall making any argument against a democratic form of government. Building a straw man is intellectually dishonest and if you can’t find any examples of the collective will of the people being evil then there’s quite a hole in your historical knowledge.