SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Monday September 24 2018, @02:51AM
from the If-it's-not-written-down-it-doesn't-exist? dept.
from the If-it's-not-written-down-it-doesn't-exist? dept.
The GDPR "right to be forgotten" is now being used to remove court cases from the internet. Seems the "right to be forgotten" is on a collision course with free speech and open government.
The complaint against Bujaldon is fairly damning, and while Bujaldon tried to get the case dismissed, the court was not at all impressed. The current docket suggests that the parties are attempting to work out a settlement, but having yourself be a defendant accused of real estate and securities fraud can't be good for the old reputation.
Never fear, however, for the GDPR has a Right to be Forgotten in it, and Bujaldon is apparently using it to delete his own name from the dockets for which he is a defendant
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
GDPR Being Used to Remove Court Cases from the Internet
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 35 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I don't want a pickle,
I just wanna ride on my motorsickle.
And I don't want to die,
I just want to ride on my motorcy.
Cle.
-- Arlo Guthrie
(Score: 5, Insightful) by darkfeline on Monday September 24 2018, @05:52AM (6 children)
If the dirt isn't true, there are already libel laws that cover it. If the dirt is true, what right do you have to prevent me from looking it up, or for someone else to write about it?
This is censorship, plain and simple.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24 2018, @09:28AM
I would just like to categorically deny that I ever said darkfeline was a dirty rat bastard with bad hygiene.
Also, I deny ever having seen him 'petting' animals or giving 'candy' to orphans.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday September 24 2018, @02:34PM
There are numerous problems with your reliance on defamation.
1) It fails to work at all. For example, after exoneration as demonstrated by a litany of falsehoods and invention, even a third person allowing the exonerated person to speak about the situation gets lynched: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/22/nyrb-s22.html [wsws.org]
2) Media is savvy enough to know it should present a story as "X person said Y" or "police charged X with Y" -- which are true statements as far as they go and at the same time, they fully accomplish the lynching.
3) Tracking down and suing each individual in a twitter/facebook mob who made defamatory statements is financially and perhaps technically infeasible and worse, a large number of those will be judgment proof.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Monday September 24 2018, @09:58PM
It's not censorship, that covers the "Now" - don't talk about you-know-who because they are listening...
It's much more rewriting.
What are you talking about? We have always been at war with Eastasia.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday October 03 2018, @05:52AM (2 children)
It is not censorship if it is information about you and you yourself don't want to propagate it. It is considered a right. And if libel laws had any teeth #MeToo would have died the day it was born.
I do understand the angle of history, though. And it is worrying. I don't actually think that to be forgotten is a right, but there is a problem and need to solve that problem where there wasn't any 20-30 years ago. Hell, for all the shit-storm that is taking place over immigration in the western countries, there wasn't even a thing called visa 100 years ago. It was actually possible to just was ashore with a boat and find a life. 200 years ago you could move to next village and nobody would even know who you were. Society was built along those cracks.
No we are in a world where control is immediate and total. My point was that European solution might not be correct but it is in the right direction.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday October 04 2018, @07:18AM (1 child)
>It is not censorship if it is information about you and you yourself don't want to propagate it. It is considered a right.
So if there is negative information about Trump and Trump doesn't want to propagate it, he can get it shut down. Yeah, that's censorship. If libel laws are a problem, then we should fix the problem not encourage censorship.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday October 04 2018, @01:19PM
I think that old terms are unfit to define new social laws. Trump can shut down the negative information, but then he won't be able to become a politician. And you can "remember" all of it after his death. Nobody is stopping you to right a book calling him Hitler after his death.
And libel laws are not a problem, they aren't strong enough for the type of problem you are suggesting them to be used for. And making libel laws stronger has a lot bigger chilling effect on free speech than 'right to be forgotten' laws.