Slashdot Mirror
NY Bill Would Require Removal of Inaccurate, Irrelevant Or Excessive Statements (washingtonpost.com)
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."
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
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Bad legislation is bad legislation no matter how lofty of it's purpose.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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
The thing about arguing via easily parroted slogan is that you tend to miss out on subtleties like what it is, exactly, that you're arguing about. I can tell from your previous post that you think this is a discussion about free speech, and I assume that's your "defining characteristic of the United States" which you think you're defending.
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 has never been absolute. Not even here in the US. I could make a comparison between what the summary is describing and libel, but let me point something else out instead: "after a significant lapse in time from its first publication" is stipulated as a requirement for this law. Does this sound like suppressing speech, or does it sound like burying history?
Or do you not distinguish between those things? "Free speech" is the term that's used, but speech is transient, ephemeral. It is of the moment. Once the issue has passed and "no longer material to current public debate or discourse" then it's not so crazy to think that what was said at that time is no longer speech, but rather history.
History, of course, has its own value, but that's a separate discussion.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.