NY Bill Would Require Removal of Inaccurate, Irrelevant Or Excessive Statements (washingtonpost.com) 155
schwit1 writes: In a bill aimed at securing a "right to be forgotten," introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), New York politicians would require people to remove "inaccurate," "irrelevant," "inadequate" or "excessive" statements about others... Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.
The Washington Post reports the bill's provisions would be as follows: Within 30 days of a "request from an individual, all search engines [and online speakers] shall remove...content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is 'inaccurate', 'irrelevant', 'inadequate' or 'excessive,' and without replacing such removed...content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.... [I]naccurate', 'irrelevant', 'inadequate', or 'excessive' shall mean content, which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse, especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information...is causing to the requester's professional, financial, reputational or other interest, with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester's role with regard to the matter is central and substantial."
The Washington Post reports the bill's provisions would be as follows: Within 30 days of a "request from an individual, all search engines [and online speakers] shall remove...content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is 'inaccurate', 'irrelevant', 'inadequate' or 'excessive,' and without replacing such removed...content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.... [I]naccurate', 'irrelevant', 'inadequate', or 'excessive' shall mean content, which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse, especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information...is causing to the requester's professional, financial, reputational or other interest, with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester's role with regard to the matter is central and substantial."
Next! (Score:5, Insightful)
"inaccurate," "irrelevant," "inadequate" or "excessive"
According to whom? Free speech, etc, etc, etc... As long as it's not ruled libel in court, it's just an opinion someone doesn't like. Yeah, there are a lot of assholes out there that need to grow some skin or get off of the Intertubes.
This is just more nonsense from Luddites that will never see a vote, although lawyers would love it since it smells like litigation...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The proposers of this bill don't understand the impact.
Oops, now I'll have to rescind that statement, because it's excessive.
Re: (Score:1)
Good points. Too bad the first reply is from a jerk.
Expecting people to learn the virtue of a thick skin (or prove libel) does not make one a jerk. The jerks are the ones who value free speech so little that they think "never getting offended" is more important.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
A jerk is still a jerk, regardless of who he does/doesn't offend.
Same AC here. Then to reconcile our two viewpoints, I propose that "jerk" is a relative term. The guy who accidentally shortchanges you by $.03 could be called a "jerk". The guy who robs you at gunpoint is most definitely a jerk. One is a pest, the other is a real threat.
Likewise the people who say offensive things on purpose to troll etc. are "jerks". The people who think that means we should weaken the 1st Amendment are most definitely jerks. Again, one is a pest. The other is a real threat. Destr
Re:Next! (Score:5, Insightful)
It could put CNN out of business
You mean Breitbart who literally, in the truest sense of the word, has put up [snopes.com] false [theguardian.com] and fake [businessinsider.com] information [trofire.com] (it can't be called news). Even Bannon has called them out [weeklystandard.com] for posting fake information [reverbpress.com].
It's why companies have ditched advertising [wired.com] on the fake site.
But let me guess, "alternative facts"? Or is it a camera in a microwave?
Re: (Score:1)
“Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go give a lavishly paid speech to Friends of Hamas,” Krugman quipped, referring to Breitbart’s recent invention of a group purportedly tied to defence Secretary Chuck Hagel that ended up not actually existing.
That is so funny.
I love the weirdo US far right. They are extremely entertaining, especially when I see Sarah Palin on the news giving a "speech".
If there are any other speakers on the bill, you can see them in the background with looks of utter revulsion on their faces, because even other right wing weirdos think she's beyond the pale.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
What's even more amazing is that you useless partisan fuckwits don't seem to realize when your own side it doing it to you. Or was it just a coincidence that when the Democrats fired their chairperson for corruption, the first name to replace her is a CNN anchor? (who then proceeded to cheat and try to help Hillary win) (and then deny it all, even though the Wikileaks emails had headers which were undeniable proof) (which is exactly how little she thinks of the intelligence of her own party. Judging by your
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's even more amazing is that you useless partisan fuckwits don't seem to realize when your own side it doing it to you. Or was it just a coincidence that when the Democrats fired their chairperson for corruption, the first name to replace her is a CNN anchor? (who then proceeded to cheat and try to help Hillary win) (and then deny it all, even though the Wikileaks emails had headers which were undeniable proof) (which is exactly how little she thinks of the intelligence of her own party. Judging by your ignorance, she isn't wrong.)
Brazile finally admitted she passed on the questions. Even though she denied it and we all knew she was lying. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donna-brazile-passing-debate-questions-clinton-camp-mistake/story?id=46218677
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how they phrase it as well:
the then-CNN contributor had forwarded potential topics ahead of a town hall....
She actually furnished exactly worded questions, but the article makes it seem like she only mentioned 'potential topics' of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Textbook conspiracy theory. No evidence that the appointment was with the intention of cheating, just speculation and some coincidental claims that for some reasons seem to have been ignored by prosecutors who have to work to a higher standard of evidence.
Re:Next! (Score:4)
"inaccurate," "irrelevant," "inadequate" or "excessive"
According to whom? Free speech, etc, etc, etc... As long as it's not ruled libel in court, it's just an opinion someone doesn't like. Yeah, there are a lot of assholes out there that need to grow some skin or get off of the Intertubes.
This is just more nonsense from Luddites that will never see a vote, although lawyers would love it since it smells like litigation...
Yup, and how do you enforce it if it becomes law? First amendment aside, it would only apply to New York and thus be ineffective at best. You could wind up being sued in NY even if you don't live there so it would definetly have a chilling effect on speech. It sounds like someone called a politician a butt head and they decided to do something, even if that is an accurate statement about them.
Re: (Score:3)
It's very badly thought out. The EU rules are based on well established concepts and have been shown to be fairly uncontentious and reasonable to implement. This just looks like a power grab.
Re: (Score:2)
It will just be used by politicians: "Hillary is a crooked warmonger!" "Trump is an narcissistic idiot!". There, 2 lawsuits comming in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oops.
https://theintercept.com/2017/... [theintercept.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the fucking article.
" for people who participate in protests involving civil disobedience."
"The proposals, which strengthen or supplement existing laws addressing the blocking or obstructing of traffic, "
If you're blocking my car and people around you are starting to get violent, I should be aloud to move and hit you in order to save my own life/property.
Re: Next! (Score:4, Interesting)
The 18 state legislatures pushing these bills are less concerned about your car being blocked than people showing up demanding answers.
All of the bills would allow states to sue protesters for the cost of policing. Do you believe we should be able to sue gun manufacturers for the cost of policing, too?
Both speech and gun ownership are supposedly constitutional rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Civil disobedience is the basic nature of protest. It's a denial of service attack on physical space. Occupy an area and make lots of noise, march down a road causing a disturbance so that people notice you.
This isn't about protecting individuals and their property, it's about creating yet another excuse to break up legitimate protests.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Next! (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between preventing peaceful protest and preventing people from blocking highways that are used for emergency vehicles.
But this article you linked doesn't bother to mention that.
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping someone would try to make this argument. These bills have nothing at all to do with "blocking highways", and everything to do with blocking speech.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/J... [csmonitor.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That article is just more of what your first post's article had in it. And neither one is very meaningful until the laws are actually made.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, good. Now we're getting to it. Read the summary for the article we're talking about. It's also just a "proposed" law, but it apparently has caused much consternation among the commenters.
Don't you think we should also hold our fire on this new bill until the "law is actually made"?
Or are you suggesting that when a Democratic state legislator proposes a bill it sho
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, good. Now we're getting to it. Read the summary for the article we're talking about. {OK, I just did.} It's also just a "proposed" law, but it apparently has caused much consternation among the commenters.
Maybe because such a law was recently implemented in Europe, and many commenters don't like the theory behind it. Not simply "a right to be forgotten", but "I have the right to censor what you write about me, eventually". Your articles are more about "don't block interstates and main streets with your Constitutionally protected protest". This law forces me to remove something I have put up: "and online speakers] shall remove content about such individual, "; and actually restricts my Constitutionally prote
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but laws like the Republicans are proposing, criminalizing protest have been passed in places like Egypt, Russia, Turkey, etc. There are people doing jail time for protesting in those places.
Let's not bullshit. We both know the reason the usual suspects are expressing their Sunday night outrage (or Monday morning, for those being outraged from Macedonia and points East) over a law regarding inaccurate statements.
Re: (Score:1)
The constitution is quite clear, people are allowed to block public thoroughfares to protest. If police deem it a problem, they can arrest them and try to prosecute them, they can not brutalise them. You can also not kill as many innocent people as possible in order to ensure the protection of yourself or your property, else by inference they are legally entitled to do the same to you, as self defence. Stupid laws, being written by stupid people, to protect nothing else but corruption. How stupid are those
Re: (Score:2)
A citizen's rights end when they negatively impact the rights of another citizen. You have the right to protest. I have the right to travel freely throughout this nation. When
Re: (Score:2)
"The constitution is quite clear, people are allowed to block public thoroughfares to protest."
Which part of The Constitution would that be? First Amendment protection of "peaceable assembly"?
I would disagree.
One of the fundamental ideas of liberty is that your liberty ends at the point where it infringes on the liberty of others. Restricting someone's freedom of movement seems like an infringement.
When you block a road, you've essentially imprisoned people in their automobiles. They obviously can't proc
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution is quite clear, people are allowed to block public thoroughfares to protest.
No it's not. In fact if anything, case law has ruled the exact opposite of this on many occasions.
Speech that creates a clear and present danger is outlawed. (Example: shouting fire in a crowded building.) When people walk on the street like this, they not only put themselves at risk, but they put the general public at risk. If you look on youtube, you can see videos of them getting hit by cars at highway speeds. In one video, BLM protesters were walking on the street, and when one of them was struck, someb
Exactly what the First amendment is meant to stop (Score:4, Insightful)
Politicians being able to control the conversation about them.
I guess they must be worried that alternate media, is decreasing the effectiveness of traditional media.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as I'm concerned public data is much less of a problem than private data collection, but I'm really glad to see at least some legislative effort being directed at privacy in this country. As it stands now we have almost no protections at all.
Regarding your cynicism about suppressing political speech: any law can be abused, but
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Bad legislation is bad legislation no matter how lofty of it's purpose.
Re: (Score:1)
The short: your tautology is a gross oversimplification. Bad legislation may be bad legislation, but it can none the less produce positive effects.
Re: (Score:3)
While this law would be incredibly hard to enforce, maybe we shouldn't be so down on politicians actually doing something, anything at all, in favor of protecting privacy?
No, fuck off. Free speech is the most important part of a free society.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes stupid positions need to be lambasted. In your case, you're attacking a cornerstone of a free society and a defining characteristic of the United States.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't mean to dismiss that entirely, freedom of speech probably factors into this somewhere, but speech is a notoriously difficult thing to nail down and its freedom
Re: (Score:3)
Does this sound like suppressing speech, or does it sound like burying history?
Both.
I don't find the distinction you're trying to draw between "speech" and "history" to be even slightly persuasive. Most speech is transient, but certainly not all speech. Speech doesn't cease to become speech merely because it was recorded. I would argue that the political diatribes that survived from ancient Rome are still speech, and political speech at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I can clarify what I'm trying to get at here. Let's say that you're talking in a forum and someone says something that you don't like. You st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law would not only apply to search engines. It would apply to everybody. In this respect, at least, it is more honest than the EU RTBF stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to suggest that not being current is what does that.
Yes, I understand. But I don't understand why you would think that. The idea that speech has some sort of expiration date past which it is no longer speech is a concept that I am having a seriously hard time wrapping my head around. I do know that there is no legal support for such a position.
By the way, political speech is considered the most protected, but it is not the only protected speech. All speech, outside of a small number of very specific exceptions, is protected free speech. It doesn't matter how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Exactly what the First amendment is meant to s (Score:1)
So has sufficient time passed that King's "I have a dream" speech should be erased from history? Plato? What is the cutoff date for "white" washing history?
Re: (Score:2)
While this law would be incredibly hard to enforce, maybe we shouldn't be so down on politicians actually doing something, anything at all, in favor of protecting privacy?
Not when the "something" is obviously unconstitutional. Besides, passing flawed laws that just because "something" has to be done tends to result in truly horrible laws and harms everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Not when the "something" is obviously unconstitutional.
Right... "obviously." Bleh, I knew when I said that that it would be controversial. Controversy isn't a problem, I don't mind discussing things, but invariably someone doesn't read all of the replies, or two people post at the same time or something, and I do mind repeating myself.
All right, if by "obviously unconstitutional" you're talking about free speech, then you can read the thread started by the insulting guy. He seemed to think this was about free speech too. I don't think that's so obvious. If y
Re: (Score:2)
the gist is that when you're starting from nothing it is hard to go down. Possible maybe, but difficult.
It may be hard to go down from zero, but it's pretty easy to drag others down to zero with you.
What we have right now when it comes to privacy is, almost literally, nothing.
You won't find many privacy advocates more earnest than me, but, while privacy protections are absolutely lacking, it is not true that they are almost literally nothing. Also, privacy interests have to be balanced against other, equally important interests. A law like this does no such thing. And, in exchange for its "bulldozer" approach, it offers almost no actual privacy protection. So we end up with a law that
Re: (Score:2)
There are perhaps some dystopian scenarios where anarchy is the preferable
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
alternate media, is decreasing the effectiveness of traditional media.
'fake news', is decreasing the effectiveness of propaganda?
Eh, whatever, all the media is doing a bang up job of keeping everybody fixated on one thing right now. They are also making it possible for things like to this to pass by creating popular demand. I wish we would penalize politicians who try to impose unconstitutional legislation. Voting them out would be good enough
Good luck with that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
we just elected a president who's doing everything he can to stack the courts with folks friendly to these kind of laws. That's not hyperbole, it was one of his campaign promises.
Where is your evidence? Citations, please.
Re: (Score:3)
we just elected a president who's doing everything he can to stack the courts with folks friendly to these kind of laws. That's not hyperbole, it was one of his campaign promises.
Where is your evidence? Citations, please.
One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because th
Re: (Score:3)
Please cite Trumps campaign promise (not some offhanded thing he said once) about scrubbing "irrelevant or excessive" statements from the internet. Seems like most of his speeches would get scrubbed right off the bat.
Cracking down on print press, TV, radio and internet for demonstrably false statements (the sky is green) is a different thing and in general a good thing if we can do it. The press gets special privileges for the express purpose of passing information to the public. If the press gets it wro
Re: (Score:2)
Don't say this won't happen! In Nova Scotia, there was outrage when a teenage girl, Rehtaeh Parsons, took her own life because of intimate photos that were shared on the Internet without her permission. These poor girls needed to be protected from the Evil Intarwebs! So the politicians reacted and came up with a Anti-Cyberbullying law ("Cyber-Safety Act").
Guess what poor little teenager's case was the first tried in court...
...are you still there? Right. It wasn't a teenage girl but some native band leader [nationalpost.com]
Problem with the political system: Sloppy thinkers (Score:1)
abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it's to cover their thin-skinned donors, led by Dogshit Trump.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's to cover their thin-skinned donors, led by Dogshit Trump.
You need to read up Mr. not-so-bright apollo. The sponsors of that bill have a "D" after their names. I guarantee, they are not looking out for Trump's interests.
Re: (Score:1)
This is from New York. Clinton country all the way.
Re: (Score:2)
it aint trump
Re: (Score:3)
rolleyes (Score:3)
Yet another bill that makes no sense...
I dunno how long people need to keep saying the exact same thing about these bills, but as always, it all comes down to who defines ""inaccurate," "irrelevant," "inadequate" or "excessive" statements". You cannot pass laws based on such broad and subjective terms as it'll always end up being exploited by the exact people who shouldn't.
Trump supporters will have SO MUCH fun with this (Score:3)
The combination of this bill along with the New York Times being, well, in New York is going to be epic. The press is chock full of misleading and excessive statements about Trump and they can be ht again and again by this rule... I'd say a goal should be to act fast enough to make the NYT pull physical papers from vending machines and stands.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course this bill would also have the side effect that Trump's entire Twitter timeline would have to be erased.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course this bill would also have the side effect that Trump's entire Twitter timeline would have to be erased.
... in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if Twitter is based in New York. New York State laws don't actually apply to companies in, say, Washington....
Re: (Score:2)
But this is the internet. Someone in New York just has to load Trump's timeline and BAM, jurisdiction.
First Amendment Fail (Score:3)
This bill fails the first amendment, in that one person can restrain another's speech. There are already laws about fraud, libel, and slander, which cover malicious speech, but nothing allows restraining merely "out of date" speech.
Who defines truth? (Score:3)
This gets to the heart of the problem around post-truth. Just who defines "truth"?
How does that fit in to the checks and balances in a democratic society? Does everything have to go through the courts?
Re: (Score:2)
Just who defines "truth"?
We do [youtube.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
This gets to the heart of the problem around post-truth. Just who defines "truth"?
How does that fit in to the checks and balances in a democratic society? Does everything have to go through the courts?
Apparently real world data and scientifically proven facts are not considered "truth" any more.
We are now free to define our own alternative truth, like when you say someone wiretapped you, your subordinates who you say would have been responsible for doing so refute your claim, the people who you say will back you up also refuse to do so and say there's no evidence to support you, yet you keep repeating the same thing as your official spokesperson says you misspoke and/or didn't mean it the first time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently real world data and scientifically proven facts are not considered "truth" any more. (...) I thought truth was universal and limited to what has actually occurred, in a factual sense, rather than a matter of opinion, but a lot of people seem not to agree any more. Pretty scary.
I think you'll find that what can be proven true or false is only a microscopic fraction of it all. A lot of tin-foil hatters have claimed the NSA is listening to everyone's phone calls, that they couldn't prove it doesn't mean it was false. We know for a fact that people lie and cheat and have been framed and operations carried out under false flag, what things appear to be at face value is not always the truth. That always leaves the door open to speculation that what you know is false and nothing but con
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently real world data and scientifically proven facts are not considered "truth" any more.
In the philosophy of Science they never were, science deals with observation and evidence, if you want a philosophy that claims "truth" join a religion.
No more free speech? (Score:2, Insightful)
We already have legislation prohibiting libel and slander, so this new bill is not only "excessive" (goes way to far) and inadequate (way too vague), it is also "irrelevant" (due to being unconstitutional and unenforceable, as well as unnecessarily duplicating enforceable laws already on the books). What a stupidly reactionary waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
I did, and I agree with that assessment.
Well, (Score:2)
Would be of limited use without additional laws (Score:2)
What do you ecpect (Score:1)
from dumb asses from New York! Lets ban soda because it makes you fat! Seriously - so does eating too much pasta and pizza - why don't you BAN that too! How about ban Rosie O' Donnell - and spoons - they make her fat and she has a fat mouth.....
There NY how about that! Does that VIOLATE your new law?
Sounds like a great idea (Score:5, Funny)
The biggest problem with "right to be forgotten".. (Score:2)
Plainly unconstitutional (Score:3)
Reading the bill, it is clear to me that this is plainly and clearly unconstitutional. They didn't even try to hide it. If it passes, it wouldn't survive the the courts.
The Left aren't the "underdog" (Score:4, Informative)
Gone are the days of:
The Illiberal Left's War on Speech continues and we've almost lost it... Major positions have been surrendered without or with little fight:
Re: (Score:2)
What? How are the sticks and the stones equivalent to name-calling?!
Nope. [ushistory.org] Emphasis mine:
Whoever it is, that created you in your belief-system, granted you your rights. It is, of course, convenient for Statists to pretend, that
Baffling 1st amendment violation (Score:2)
This isn't going to last 5 minutes in the courts. Its just plainly obvious that its unconstitutional. I'm baffled that the people who are supposed to know this stuff , the legislators, keep screwing this up.
This isn't a left wing or right wing thing. Its just a straight up retarded thing.
Apophasis (Score:2)
I don't for one second believe the rumors that Mayor DeBlasio has sex with squids.
This is a real problem (Score:2)
It's important to see both sides of the issue. Yes, this law would almost certainly violate the first amendment. Yes, it could easily be abused. But it's also a sincere attempt at fixing a real problem.
Someone falsely accuses you of some terrible crime. Maybe you have a bad breakup and your ex decides to get revenge by accusing you of child abuse or theft or something like that. It gets reported in the local news. The accusations are totally false, the police figure that out really quickly, and all ch
I have a right to be remembered also! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The 'attorney fees' part is the big money maker.
Have you ever looked into who makes up the bulk of the legislature?
Lawyers.
Go figure.