Japanese Court Orders Google To Delete Past Reports Of Man's Molestation Arrest

AmiMoJo writes: The Saitama District Court has ordered Google Inc. to delete past reports on a man's arrest over molestation from its online search results after ruling that they violate the man's personal rights. The man, who was arrested about three years ago after molesting a girl under 18, and fined 500,000 yen (£2600, $4000). "He harbors remorse over the incident and is leading a new life. The search results prevent him from rehabilitating himself," the man's defense counsel said. The presiding judge recognized that the incident was not of historical or social significance, that the man is not in public office and that his offense was relatively minor. He concluded there was little public interest in keeping such reports displayed online three years after the incident. The judge acknowledged that search engines play a public role in assisting people's right to know. (AmiMoJo spotted the story on Surado, the new name for Slashdot Japan.)

Comments

Re:Hillary Clinton says:

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fuck that's amazingly creepy. Hillary Clinton effectively got a man who raped a 12 year old off scot-free.

Your champion of liberalism and women's rights, right there.

He was convicted and got a sentence of one year in jail and four years probation in a plea bargain.
First of all, that is not "scot-free", and don't pretend that your use of the word "effectively" makes what you said anything other than misleading.
Secondly, she was appointed to the case by the judge and asked to be let off but was denied.

Finally, it's up to the judge and prosecutor to set the sentence.
They're the ones that are to blame in cases like this.

Re: Hillary Clinton says:

[Zontar The Mindless]

I've decided to blow off the downmod I just gave you in order to explain something to you:

1. Clinton was appointed by the court to defend an accused rapist.

2. She asked to be excused from the case, presumably because she knew or at least strongly suspected the defendant had actually committed the offence.

3. The judge would not let her off the case.

ExecSummary: Hillary Clinton was *ordered* by the State to act to the best of her ability in the interest of the defendant. And this is exactly what she appears to have done. You may or may not like her or her politics, but in this case *she did the job which she was legally and ethically bound to perform*. If you cannot understand why she did so, then you've never any business ever voting in a US election or especially ever serving on a jury in a US criminal trial.