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."

11 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 Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3

      "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...

      Yup, and how do you enforce it if it becomes law? First amendment aside, it would only apply to New York and thus be ineffective at best. You could wind up being sued in NY even if you don't live there so it would definetly have a chilling effect on speech. It sounds like someone called a politician a butt head and they decided to do something, even if that is an accurate statement about them.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. Re: Next! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I should be aloud to move and hit you in order to save my own life/property.

      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.
  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
    1. Re:abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it's to cover their thin-skinned donors, led by Dogshit Trump.

      You need to read up Mr. not-so-bright apollo. The sponsors of that bill have a "D" after their names. I guarantee, they are not looking out for Trump's interests.

  4. Re:Exactly what the First amendment is meant to st by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!”
  5. Sounds like a great idea by Solandri · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a test, I propose the law first be applied to statements made by the bill's authors and supporters through the next election cycle.

  6. The Left aren't the "underdog" by mi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Gone are the days of:

    sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me

    The Illiberal Left's War on Speech continues and we've almost lost it... Major positions have been surrendered without or with little fight:

    • "Safe spaces" on campuses have been weaponized and are used to suppress opinions, that make others "uncomfortable";
    • The nonsense of "gender-neutral pronouns" and "transgenderism" in general came out of nowhere — a pregnant woman coming to a hospital to give birth claims to be a man, and is offended, when referred to as "mommy" by the nurses.
    • Though one can not (yet!) be arrested for making others "uncomfortable" with one's opinion, one may already be fired for same.
    • "Hate speech" is already illegal in many Western countries — with movement afoot to bring the same oppression into the US.
    • Though the Bill of Rights is still, supposedly, the law of the land, its treatment has changed:

      “This isn’t really the ’60s anymore [...] people can’t really protest like that anymore.”

    • The "right to be forgotten", having never existed before, is suddenly "a thing". Can't wait to discuss the court-ordered memory-erasures on SlashDot...
    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.