Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NY Bill Would Require Removal of Inaccurate, Irrelevant Or Excessive Statements (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the fact-checking-by-law dept.

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."

9 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Next! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, 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...

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Next! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re: Next! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The political left. They're always the ones trying to limit what people (except the political left...) can express.

      Oops.

      https://theintercept.com/2017/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Next! by quonset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It could put CNN out of business

      You mean Breitbart who literally, in the truest sense of the word, has put up false and fake information (it can't be called news). Even Bannon has called them out for posting fake information.

      It's why companies have ditched advertising on the fake site.

      But let me guess, "alternative facts"? Or is it a camera in a microwave?

    4. Re: Next! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, 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.

    5. Re:Next! by Anonymous Coward · · 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 ignorance, she isn't wrong.)

  2. Exactly what the First amendment is meant to stop by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, 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.

  3. abuse by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems like a law written and intended to be used by politicians to remove anything they dont want you to know about them ,especially after they do something shady

    /tinfoil

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  4. No more free speech? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think Donald Trump is silly and orange, and I don't like him. My previous statement is irrelevant. Please fine me for it, I dare you!

    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.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.