• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

The Right To Be Forgotten vs The Right Of Free Speech

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,837
Likes
40,239
#1
New York Assemblyman Unveils Bill To Suppress Non-Government-Approved Free Speech


by Tyler Durden
Mar 17, 2017 5:35 AM


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), liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others...
  • 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.”
  • “ ‘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.”

Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

As The Washington Post's Eugene Volokh rages, under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was “no longer material to current public debate or discourse” (except when it was “related to convicted felonies” or “legal matters relating to violence” in which the subject played a “central and substantial” role).

And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was “no longer material to current public debate.” Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others.

But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).


Remember: There is no “right to be forgotten” in the abstract; no law can ensure that, and no law can be limited to that. Instead, the “right” this aims to protect is the power to suppress speech — the power to force people (on pain of financial ruin) to stop talking about other people, when some government body decides that they should stop.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-suppress-non-government-approved-free-speech
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
11,799
Likes
18,906
Location
ORYGUN
#2
Leave WTP & the First Amend. alone.
Let's get this applied to lawyers (liars) instead !!!
 

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,898
Likes
4,859
Location
Michiana
#5
Suppression of free speech and the free communication of ideas is indeed THE hallmark of ANY form of totalitarian government whether NAZI, socialist, communist or any form of dictatorship. Senators and representatives who introduce this kind legislation along with judges who rule and prime ministers and presidents who attempt to bring such laws, regulations and policies into practice NEED to be introduced to the wonders of hemp rope as it is the only successful therapy for their respective states and countries.
 

Fanakapan

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,595
Likes
3,026
Location
Limeyland
#6
The EU already has such a law, and as a consequence Google results in Europe have been subjected to cleansing by convicted pornographers, and crooks of every imaginable stripe.

Its also been a boon to many of the prominente of the current 'Populist' wave, its allowed them to expunge from easy view much of the stupid sh1t they spouted years ago when they were recognised for the idiots they are :)