Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Court Demands 'Right To Be Forgotten' For Sex Offender (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A Tokyo court has ordered that Google remove any results linked to the arrest of a sex offender, after a judge ruled that he deserves to rebuild his life 'unhindered' by online records of his criminal history. Citing the right to be forgotten, the Saitma district court demanded the removal of all personal information online related to the conviction. Judge Hisaki Kobayashi argued that, dependent on the nature of the crime, an individual should be able to go through a fair rehabilitation process, which would include a clean sheet on their online records after a certain amount of time has passed. In this case, the unnamed man had requested that information from more than three years ago, related to his child prostitution and pornography crimes, be removed from Google's results.
I had no idea who this guy was. Now I do. May I introduce you to the Streisand Effect?
Do the crime, do the time, that should be the end of it.
The West's obsession with adding people to lists, especially "sex offender registries" which make it nearly impossible to live in any city environment, really amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. If you're still supposedly a threat to society then you should still be in jail. If you're OK to be released from jail then you've paid your dues to society and you should regain all of your rights.
It is always depends on which point of view you look at this (not even touching the point of contention of free speech). You can see prison as mostly punishment or as rehabilitation. If you see it as rehabilitation, then having the punishment become a matter of public record, hinder the rehabilitation, make the people become paria, unemployable (even for job without children) social outcast - such I am not defending the crime , only the right to rehabilitation once the crime was paid especially socially.
I am for the right to be forgotten anyway : we enjoyed that right until google came up. before that, everybody could simply be forgotten by moving to the next village (exaggerating a bit but without a way to search for news archive this came down to this)...
But i can imagine that some people buying into "information wants to be free" and never lived in the time period pre-google where forgetting was the norm... Can't grasp at the issue. Or don't care.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
His 'child pornography' conviction involved someone he was dating - either sending his pics of himself at 17 to a girl, or receiving pics of his 17 year old girlfriend. Similar issues for the child prostition could apply.
We don't know all the details, as the reporter failed to provide this kind of information.
But if this was a 25+ year old guy selling pics and pimping multiple women, that's a different story.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Child predators should ONLY be forgotten after their limbs are torn off from the indecipherable flesh pile that remains.
I was listening to talk radio show on Christmas Eve in 2011 about a man who got more prison time for screwing a pooch than he would have gotten for screwing a child. Animal rights activists and parents went after each other throats. When someone demanded the death penalty, the capital punishment crowd came out of the woodwork. That's America for you.
If the punishment is not adequate, then increase the punishment. When the punishment is fulfilled, the criminal has paid his dues in full. That's the way justice works. You don't get to pick and choose where and when to apply justice. Either you apply justice consistently or you admit that you believe in inequality.
never forget!!!
His 'child pornography' conviction involved someone he was dating - either sending his pics of himself at 17 to a girl, or receiving pics of his 17 year old girlfriend. Similar issues for the child prostition could apply.
In Japan the age of consent is 13 years old. There is also a 1 year buffer for age differences.
A 25+ year old having sex with a 13 year old is perfectly legal. A 13 year old having sex with a 12 year old is also legal.
The pictures involved would need to be of a 12 year old or younger person before child pornography laws applied.
Sexual acts would also need to be between a 12 year old or younger person, and someone older than 14 years old before child prostitution laws applied.
The only new news to me here is that forced sex with a 12 year old or younger kid in Japan only seems carries a 3 year max sentence, assuming the news report is true...
As I was reading the comments for this article, I was thinking to myself that it was just another is a series of such legal actions. Ultimately Google (and other public search engines) will have to maintain blacklists of information not to be to revealed, entries in the lists made upon demanded by any first party to the item. But then I looked at the upper right corner of the comments web page, and there was a advertisement for "Public Records Online". This, as most of you know, is a fee based service that pulls any and all public records for a given person. The fee-based aspect puts this service in a different category than Google. Currently no one is arguing that such fee-based services be restricted from viewing public records. Suppose the courts ruled that even a fee based search must respect the "right to be forgotten". The public records are still publicly obtainable, we have just made it less convenient. By restricting Google, you have made necessary to pay a fee. If the courts shutdown the fee-based service, we have just made it necessary to employ a investigator to hit the pavement and track down records the old fashion way. So the 'right to be forgotten" seems to be about the convenient availability of public records, not about erasing the public record. Even "sealing" court records does not help -- all major city libraries keep newspaper/magazines morgues. It becomes difficult but not impossible in such circumstances to find out anything about anybody. I understand that it is tough for some one who has successfully been rehabilitated to escape their past. But I believe we have to stop blaming the Internet for loss of privacy when frankly all that the Internet did was make the information more accessible -- it did not generate the information, it did not promote the information, it just made it more difficult to hide.
-- Perhaps I see less than some, but more than many.
A quick perusal above shows where people's heads are at on the 'right to be forgotten':
"We enjoyed that right until google came up. before that, everybody could simply be forgotten by moving to the next village"
"Before that, if you wanted to be forgotten, you simply moved and adopted a new name."
No, it was not a 'right' then, as there was nothing in the law to provide it, nor was it considered an unstated right assumed by society.
No, you were not forgotten, rather, new individuals were ignorant.
No, name changes were public record and so too were most criminal complaints – simply not having a trivial way to search them does not equate being inaccessible, and certainly not to being ‘Forgotten’.
Why target google searches alone? Shouldn’t someone need to go through the police records, newspaper archives (and any microfiche for places still using that at the time of the offense), magazines, comedians routines, and song lyrics (if the crime was public enough) - and any recordings thereof – to eliminate the references? As per 1984, you’re going to need a whole department working 24/7 to censor or rewrite all the data there ever was if you’re really pushing for ‘forgotten’ status.
Really though, this isn’t about a right. It’s about restriction of rights. What advocates of this restriction are really trying to do is eliminate access by society at large to public records. Since the very nature of public records is that they are publically accessible, they’re instead attacking the ability to search the records, in an attempt to make the data useless. Basically, it’s the same sort of political machinations you see in attempts to do end-runs around laws in US politics today: so called sanctuary cities deciding not to check the residency status of illegal aliens, or requiring state ID to vote to drive away minorities. It’s folks deliberately doing an end-run around the law.
What it really comes down to is this: If we’re not supposed to do something, be it identify someone as an ex-convict or other, then why can we do it through every other channel allowed except for a single one singled out simply because of it’s current popularity and ease of use?
The problem with expunging a particular web page from search is that this web page probably contains other information.
So suppose the document contains the name of the arresting officer - or of the judge who tried the offender - or of the town in which it occurred.
If I want to know whether some particular police officer made a career out of arresting sex offenders - or whether one judge is harsher on sex offenders than others, If I I can't find all of these kinds of records because they are hidden for other reasons then it causes an immense problem for freedom of information.
I might spend a lot of my time and effort in writing something that mentions this person in passing - and because of that, nobody will find my work. That's a clear invasion of my right to free speech.
And as for the victim - it doesn't really lock away the information because other web sites can make registries of past offenders and link to their arrest documents...and finding those registries with Google is still allowed...and should be protected under free speech laws.
So this measure is both oppressive to people unrelated to the case - and ineffective at preventing anyone who is even mildly determined from finding the documents.
-- Steve
www.sjbaker.org
Given you haven't missed it at all, you will be happy to tell us all the name of the dude you now know about.
(mic drop)
In his defense, the bitch was ASKING FOR IT!!!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's no a question of punishment. It's a question of whether potential new victims have the right to be forewarned about people that have demonstrated harmful behavior in the past which they are likely to repeat in the future. The only part open to debate is how likely they are to reoffend, but as long as the probability is non-zero, I believe potential future victims have a right to know. The problem is actually one of classification; everyone from baby rapers to people who had sex with their girlfriend a day before her 18th birthday go on the same list, if if the later guy later married his girlfriend, he is still considered a "sex offender"! We need much more subtle classifications, and people who no longer pose any danger to society should not have to register.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
so do that to any one hosting a tor end node?
The biggest problem that I have with this so-called "right" is that it essentially amounts to trying to control what opinions people are permitted to form, by censoring which facts or even revised history they might be legitimately exposed to. In many respects, it has a similar agenda to Newspeak.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Hey, as long as they are WINNING FOOTBALL GAMES, that's the important thing! So what if they diddle a few little boys...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
In his defense, the bitch was ASKING FOR IT!!!
The pooch was male and subsequently died from its injuries.
I don't know if that's what he thinks but I'm OK with it. Do you know where else he could have a right to be forgotten? In the bottom of an unmarked shallow grave.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
For a start, this probably wasn't child porn at all. It definitely wasn't prostitution. Look at the fucking summary:
"Judge Hisaki Kobayashi argued that, dependent on the nature of the crime, an individual should be able to go through a fair rehabilitation process"
But in any case, why should it be different?
After all, the fucking POINT of the jail term is to rehabilitate, and when you're rehabilitated, you aren't a risk.
And the risk is that some pshychopathic nutbar like yourself will decide to "bring justice" to them when you find them. Even if it's because you don't know what "paediatrician" means. I'd prefer we not have murders and beatings more than knowing if the dude or dudette has been fiddling kids.
Which is generally not children at all, but post-pubescent adults we call "juveniles" or "adolescents". Not kids. Adults.
... of all the things to object to... it's the disease angle you go for. wow.
we're talking a drop in the bucket vs pet ownership in general.
Although you might be right about age of consent, you're wrong on the child pornography. It's still prosecuted there, even if the pictures are of children 12, 13 14..etc.
It is interesting to note that art depicting sex with minors is legal in Japan and America* (this gets into muddy water in the US since a lot falls under the subjective description of "obscenity", but in general, fiction is usually protected. The court cases vary). Creating or having possession cartoon porn of Simpsons characters will get you thrown in prison in the UK. That's right. You can make content, by yourself, even if you're an adult, that is illegal, in most parts of the world.
Somebody fucked a male dog? The disgusting little pervert!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You're right, as a parent you should also be able to walk in to any home of any neighbor at any time of day and watch them surf the internet as well as check their browsing history. You also should be able to check their bank statements, any other criminal history, as well as have any potential weapons in anyone's home in the nearest square mile registered and available for you to see at any time you feel like it...after all you never know who may be around you...and "as a parent... [your] right to know and to make an informed objection trumps [my] right to anonymity"
It's nice to see you defending child predators because animal abusers also outrage the public.
Citation please?
I think you are confusing the age of consent and child pornography/prostitution laws.
The idea is that in Japan, like in most civilized countries, consensual sex is always allowed. The age of consent defines the age bellow which informed consent is considered impossible. Which mean that sex with children under the age of consent is always considered non-consensual, i.e. rape.
Pornography and prostitution is not just sex, it is sex work, and it is forbidden for minors, no matter if they can give their consent or not. The limit here is 18. Different set of laws for a different case.
Uhh ... except, of course, that the risk of recidivism is disproportionately high because this is a manifestation of a mental illness that is generally not treated, at all. Why do you think I should have no right to know that a predator is living next door to my daughters? "Done the time" is clearly an inadequate treatment for metnal illness, and given the rate of recidivism, parents have a right to now so that they can protect their children.
Some people seem to believe that its like 'treating gays', that being a 'sex offender' is just what that person is and curing them is impossible because its not a disorder. Like being gay.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
You mean Japan looks for ways to COVER UP for people. Japan is one fucked up country. The treatment of women is one of the worst among industrial nations. Technologically progressive but socially backwards. Case in point:
"If the country’s “baby-making machines”, as a former LDP health minister put it, stayed at home then they would produce more babies, and thus more workers." http://www.economist.com/news/...
Wow. Just wow.
This is the point I was going for! Also, if the offender really is a danger to society, he should not be released back into society to find other Victims. However if is not a danger to society, he should not be "punished" for the rest of his life with no change of employment or not being legally allowed to exist (which is the result of laws that prevent "sex offenders" from living pretty much anywhere)
Sex offender registries are useless in anything but small towns. If you live anywhere with a population of 100K or more people (a random number I picked to be a "large" town) you will find a ridiculous number of sex offenders all over the map. The only purpose of a sex offender registry is to extend the punishment length without making it appear "undue". It's arguably unconstitutional, and it's a petty way to enforce/extend the nanny-state attitude. If the perpetrators deserve to be continually tracked or pose a continued danger to society, they should still be in prison. Is there a mugger registry? No. How about a car theft registry? No. Why not? Those crimes have lasting impact (emotional and financial) to the victims as well.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Just an extreme example for argument's sake. If the crime is so heinous. either put the offender to death or keep him in jail for life. Don't release him and expect him to be unemployable and not allowed to live anywhere (or to even exist).
The answer to that is that Jorge should not be released.
However "sex offender" registries are not lists of pedophiles or predators, though they do have pedophiles or predators in them. It is a list of people convicted of "sex crimes" which might, or might not, involve children. It also includes kids who are sexting each other, parents who take photos of their kids in the bathtub or some state of undress (this used to be a common thing back in the day) and even people that had to take a piss so bad someplace where there wasn't a bathroom, so they went in the bushes and got caught.
The problem with sex offender registries is that Morons, such as yourself, assume everyone on it is Jorge
We need much more subtle classifications, and people who no longer pose any danger to society should not have to register.
To some extent, I agree. But, perhaps more importantly, we need to abolish automatic required registration based on the name of the crime, which is very common in the U.S. That's the thing that results in the injustices you mention, lumping all sorts of people together. Usually, these laws have broad language and are passed by legislators who don't care about whether they ensnare the wrong people or whether the policies may actually be effective. (We have recidivism stats collected from MANY studies on all sorts of crimes, and they should be used -- in addition to individual psychological assessments -- to determine who gets listed.)
Being forced to register on such a list should be viewed as an additional rehabilitation measure, just as supervised parole is. It should require a judgment from a judge to put you on the list, not be automatic solely based on the name of the listed crime. And it should require periodic reconsideration, at least every year, to make a determination whether listing is still required.
Otherwise, from my perspective, it's effectively a lifelong punishment, sentenced without due process.
It's even an issue before somebody is convicted. If Bob Smith the drama teacher has been accused of sexual assault, do you release details to various people saying "Bob is accused of X" so other victims may come forward, or do you keep it private so that Bob doesn't get his name splashed through the paper for a crime he hasn't been convicted of?
A few points.
1. There is such a thing as 'non-exclusive' pedophiles who will in fact 'pop a stiffy' with a suitably attractive 21 year old. In fact, there are quite a few of them. By putting them on the registry, you're drastically reducing the chances that they will find a woman they can be satisfied with and thereby (hopefully) avoid recidivism. Is this a huge concern? Probably not, since there's always the possibility they'd re-offend if they end up having kids of their own. However...
2. Most kids are diddled by people in their immediate family or close friends anyway. Stranger Danger is practically a fabrication, and these lists don't keep the majority of children safe because most children are victimized by people the family already knows - if not it's own members.
3. With 2 in mind, 'If only I had known' is actually part of the problem. The fact is, most children are victimized by relatives or very close friends of the family. Registries not only fail to protect against this threat most of the time, they create a false sense of security for parents and other caretakers. "He's not on the registry, so he must be safe." This effect almost certainly dwarfs the paltry protective effect the registry might otherwise have, given the structural problems with the problem of child molestation itself.
Lots to cover but I'll try to keep it as brief as possible.
While I agree with the point on our penal system being broken in many ways, gauging the biggest affront is certainly a matter of perspective. The kid serving life for drug sales because he had no other form of income probably puts recidivism pretty low on the priority scale. A chance of recidivism is not any different than a chance for someone to commit a crime in terms of how it can be treated according to the US Constitution. Contrary to what some people attempt to claim, the Constitution is not "rubber" and always changing. It's a set of very basic rules for a Government. According to the US Constitution, one must be convicted by their peers and found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt for there to be any crime, punishment, or attempt to rehabilitate. The punishment is set for a crime by the Law. Each law has a minimum and maximum associated with it. If the punishment is too little or too much, Law must be changed to reflect the difference.
A "offender list" is merely an extended punishment and extremely harmful (I'll get there). In legal terms it allows the state to stack the deck and creates a huge imbalance. I don't see it any different than "hate crimes" or "gun crime" or "drug crime" in terms of how it _should_ be treated by Law. The State can throw charge after charge on you until something sticks. Your option if that happens is to beg for mercy and take the smallest number an opinion allows. That's not law, it's chaos and tyranny.
Why you might ask? I mean.. for the children and hurting someone because of race is worse than hurting someone because of emotion. It's an easy fallacy to fall for, but in reality the victim of a crime does not receive more or less of that crime because of age, race, or gender. Further, what if you are a guy and were raped. Would you want your assailant to get less of a punishment because you are a man? That fallacy has slowly opened the door to what we have today. Which quite frankly has become a scary system (If you are not scared you could start with "Three Felonies a Day").
How is the offender-list extremely harmful? Simple: Anyone who could have been rehabilitated will not be. This person has been punished and labelled for life. Society has ensured that a person can never have a relationship with the opposite sex, because who want's to date a person on the sex offenders list? Meaning, how can they exert any sexual desire outside of rape? Who is going to be the easiest victim for someone like that, an adult who can fight back or a child? The person won't have a good job so can't afford prostitution, among other things that could keep them from repeat offense.
English/European common law took a couple thousand years to get close to right. In the last 50, we have been slowly flushing it all away. We have done so using the exact means that Marx stated were needed to dupe the public into compliance (and many others expanded on).
Finally, don't misunderstand. Sexual Assault is a serious crime and should be treated as such. If the minimum term does not fit, then the Law needs to be changed to an acceptable level. Once given the ability to make arbitrary punishments the State does not discriminate who they use that ability on. Support the wrong political group, I dare you. The US has already punished people with Government agencies for that. Luckily it was caught _after_the_fact_ so they stopped. For now.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I don't have all the details but I do think that someone who commits a crime and completes the punishment should be able to get back to a somewhat normal life. Some countries in the world do make this a bit easier, not in the US.
In the US, if you're even linked to a terrible crime it will haunt you for the rest of your life. Our government and news agencies think that just because they say "alleged" that is brings no harm to people who are actually innocent. Innocent until proven guilty.. it is meaningless as long as the accused name is allowed to be used before guilt is proven.
I hope this guy accepted his punishment, served it well, and can becoming a contributing member of society.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
The right to be forgotten in most of the world and other horrendous restrictions on speech mean that even with all the NSA spying going on the USA is still the land of the free. There will probably come a time when a US based search engine with no established presence anywhere else will make sure that we denizens of the rest of the world still have the opportunity to speak out. The fact that information is easier to find these days than 30 years ago simply means that we as a society have to re-evaluate what emphasis we put on past deeds; it should not mean that nobody should have the right to speak about certain things any more.
"The only part open to debate is how likely they are to reoffend, but as long as the probability is non-zero, I believe potential future victims have a right to know."
We reject acting on any value of probability of a first offense out of hand on the grounds that it is unknowable within a reasonable doubt. Why do we then accept probability of a second offence?
Can the victims life be rebuilt without the crime?
I have no problem with accountability, and sex offenders should have to live with it for as long as someone wants the pages on the internet.
And then you make it a bit larger, and include indecent speech. And then having an unpopular political opinion. And so on. There is a reason these public registries are an exceptionally bad idea. And, incidentally, these things being public record protects exactly nobody. It makes the problem worse, because those affected cannot re-integrate into society and hence will have a lot less to lose. The mere stupidity of the whole idea is staggering.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
In the UK a murders gets a mandatory life sentence. If he is released, he is always 'on licence', meaning that his life is far more constrained that that of a person on the sex offender register, which is little more than a registration of where you are resident
"unforget"?
If you mean forget, yes, most victims of violent crimes forget and get on with their lives. Unless people go out of their way to remind them and turn them into eternal victims, in which case they "unforget".
Bingo.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
no, if you broke the law you don't get to hide behind it.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
which they are likely to repeat in the future.
Bullshit. If he is likely to repeat it, keep him locked up.
but as long as the probability is non-zero
Your probability of brutally torturing a little child to death after raping it in front of its mother whom you just set on fire afterwards is non-zero. I'm fairly sure it is really, really small, but it is non-zero.
So how much above zero you need before you ruin someones life?
We need much more subtle classifications, and people who no longer pose any danger to society should not have to register.
With you on that one. No, wait. We need to keep people who are still a danger to society locked up. When people are set free, we should be safe to assume they are no more a danger than everyone else. If they are not, don't set them free. If they are, don't keep them on some naughty list just because you can.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I would also suggest that if we measure a country by stupid statements of politicians, then it would not be hard to find the world leader in stupid.
I suspect it would be a country located somewhere between Mexico and Canada..
Its not normal for people who read /.
in the past which they are likely to repeat in the future.
Are you saying their rehabilitation wasn't sufficient? That's what you're saying right? I mean isn't that the point of someone who's been let free?
Maybe you should be directing your attention at the rehabilitation process (prison) instead of putting a man on a list based on nothing but a an action with no evidence that the person may or may not re-offend.
Or are you in favour of convicting people for thought crimes too?
It's the opposite of the American approach, where sex offences are never allowed to be forgotten. I wonder if one is better.
It's no a question of punishment.
Well...it is, actually. It shouldn't be, but it is.
What it all comes down to is a question of the purpose of prison—and, indeed, of any court sentence.
As the excellent Illustrated Guide to Law lays out, any of our court sentences have five related purposes (and which purpose is most prioritized for a given sentence informs what the sentence is going to be like): Punishment, Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Removal and Retribution. At present, at least, America tends to focus heavily on Punishment and Retribution. That's what all the Tough On Crime laws are about: if you do something bad, you will be punished for it so that we feel like you've been hurt as much as the people you hurt. That's also partly about Deterrence.
Prison, specifically (and the death penalty, if you think about it), can usually serve the purpose of Removal—separating the criminal from the general population (aka "their potential victims," in many people's eyes, especially in the case of a registered sex offender). And, indeed, as some other people point out, if your real intention with a sex offender registry is to prevent them from coming into contact with potential victims, then the obvious solution is to just keep them locked up for life. Or kill them.
But I think most people would agree that, for most offenses that can land you on such a registry, that's too extreme. And all of this ignores the most utilitarian purpose of a court sentence for a crime: Rehabilitation. Helping the criminal to change whatever it is about themselves, or their life, that caused them to commit the crime in the first place. With a "classic" sex offender, this would have to include some kind of psychological component. Indeed, it might involve a lifetime of counseling, therapy, and/or drugs...but if we actually wanted to prevent people from committing these kinds of crimes again, rather than just hitting them on the head with the big freakin' hammer of the State from time to time when they reoffend (either in truth or merely by technicality, by breaking some condition of their registration), then we should pay a lot more attention to the mental health aspects of them than just thinking of the chiiiiiildren.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
as soon as the sex offender strikes again. "Yes but I Googled our new neighbor, and nothing came up, so I let my daughters play outside." You betcha Judge Kobayashi wants to have it forgotten that he was the one who struck the results from the record.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
It's no a question of punishment. It's a question of whether potential new victims have the right to be forewarned about people that have demonstrated harmful behavior in the past which they are likely to repeat in the future. The only part open to debate is how likely they are to reoffend, but as long as the probability is non-zero, I believe potential future victims have a right to know.
So we should have a burglary registry, and a murder registry too. And how about a registry for people who speed, we need to know if these dangerous people like in our neighborhood so we can remove them. We should have a registry for everything so we can tell how evil all the people are that live near us and compare it to how many registries we ourselves are on.
On a side note, the whole "fact" about the recidivism rate of sexual predators is a lie. They actually have a lower recidivism than most other crimes.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.