There is a lot of crossover here and the Right to be Forgotten. The EFF opposed EU right to be forgotten laws because they could often be used in censorship (like in this very matter).
In the US, there are fewer people who expunge criminal records because there are companies that will produced expunged records in background checks so long as they were public at any time. Banning this gets into 1st amendment grounds.
And that's the flip side: labeling theory. In places like Australia, certain crimes do get removed from your record so long as you've stayed out of the system for five years. Even their sex offender registry has limited use (certain jobs, housing restrictions etc.); it's not public like ours. Then again, they don't have freedom of speech (except in Victoria; sorta).
Could we have laws that restrict companies from considering criminal records past x number of years in the US? I'm not sure if that'd be possible in our currently legal system.
In America, you can't really restrict information, once it's published, except in certain limited cases (like when a case involves a minor).
We have that here (Netherlands). You are under no circumstances allowed to not hire someone because of past failures if the statue if limitation has expired or the sentence has been served. There might be restrictions on what you can do after you have served, but it is not up to the company to judge on this. This is one of the reasons the "right to be forgotten" exists.
You can however request a "VOG" (translation something like: "Confirmation of good behavior") in which a company (or volunteer organisation for instance) asks for very specific cases like "Allowed to work with children" or "Can have access to privileged data like personal data or medical". The request is handled by the government. You get a response like "No comment" if there is no problem or "Not granted" if you fail. This avoids the problem of having people judge your exact misdemeanors/behavior in the past and leaves it out of a private companies hands and allows the right to be forgotten to exist.
You can also request it and let the person reject the request on legal grounds, but this usually gets you into more problems than you would like.
There is one "but". For higher security clearances (like for working for the state department equivalent) they are allowed to look further back and are allowed to view data from further back and do proper background checks forcing specific issues to come to the light of day. But that check is way more complex than a simple "VOG".
I think the issue of freedom of speech is much more nuanced than that.
For example, even in places with "absolute freedom of speech", which I suspect is what you're implying, there is defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth.
> Could we have laws that restrict companies from considering criminal records past x number of years in the US? I'm not sure if that'd be possible in our currently legal system.
Yes, these laws exist in many places in the US often under the name "ban the box"
Here in DC, it is illegal for me to obtain an applicant's criminal record until after I've made an offer and I cannot withdraw an offer simply because the applicant has a record.
I think SF and NYC have some version of this as well.
I think it is abhorrent that data of expunged criminal records are kept by private firms. Why can't this be made illegal if yelling "fire" in a theater is?
Eugene Volokh discussed this case earlier today on his blog [0]. His rough conclusion, with appropriate caselaw citations, was that the 9th circuit will almost certainly overturn the injunction on the article.
The times wrote about a confidential document that was mistakenly released to the pulblic. The judge who sealed the document in the first ordered the times to redact their article which goes against decades of case law and arguably the first amendment.
Not only this but the Streisand effect seems to suggest that the court order will have the opposite than intended effect
John Saro Balian, 45, pleaded guilty to one count each of soliciting a bribe, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators as part of a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors. The document was ordered to be filed under seal but appeared on PACER, a public online database for court documents.
I'd say that last part is the part that got LAT in trouble... I rarely support the whole "under seal" thing, especially when it's in order to protect a corrupt dirtbag cop, but this "ask for forgiveness not permission" stuff won't fly with many judges...
But yeah, this guy is scum. Not only has he gleefully profited from both sides of the ruinous Drug War, but his police status has allowed him to escape the draconian punishments that normal people suffer.
Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press.
I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
Judges and elected officials routinely regulate free speech. Every court sealed record, every copyright performance enforcement, every liable/slander ruling, every pornograpy lewd speech law/FCC regulation, hate crime and bullying laws that limit what anyone can say, tons of national security arms export that restrict wide gamut of things like CPUs and maths algorithms.
Some of those I agree with. Some I don't. Point is Supreme Court has rightly ruled Free Speech is not a absolute right. It does not trump all other rights. Nor all the duties/responsibilities we put onto governments.
Removal from office is the last thing that should happen in this situation. The judge made a questionable decision, which will be appealed, but the judge should not be fired (that is an action reserved for actual misconduct). If we do the latter to judges with whom we do not agree, we jeopardize the independence of our judiciary.
I just want to point out that this type of all-or-nothing thinking may be the most effective way to alienate people from your perspective. I'd consider myself a free-speech nut, but comments like this make me want to distance myself from that label.
I know this isn't related to hate speech, it was done to protect someone's family, but in much of the world, various forms of speech are regulated (by judges or elected officials).
To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope.
I think it's good to be vigilant about these things and scrutinize judges and officials though.
I was thinking it would turn out to be one of those bizarre elected judges that the US has. But I think federal judges are all appointed through some resemblance of a sensible process, so I'm at a loss as well.
Perhaps the judge should look instead to the court's and clerk's own record management. Something that is obviously in error, and the original cause of the risk.
Of course, they may well seek to quash such publicity. After all, who's going to make a deal with a system so incompetent it can't keep a sealed record safe from its own negligent mis-handling?
There’s already manufactured consent and corruption of civilizational-implosion proportions, but this is a shot across the bow that the day of the fourth estate independent press maybe numbered.
Their wrong actions? What wrong actions? The judge did their job: they considered the facts and the law, and applied their legal reasoning, and reached a conclusion.
The fact that you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean the judge acted wrongly. There's nothing to be held accountable for.
The reasoning or decision itself, on the other hand, will go through the processes of review that almost all judicial decisions go through.
[+] [-] djsumdog|7 years ago|reply
In the US, there are fewer people who expunge criminal records because there are companies that will produced expunged records in background checks so long as they were public at any time. Banning this gets into 1st amendment grounds.
And that's the flip side: labeling theory. In places like Australia, certain crimes do get removed from your record so long as you've stayed out of the system for five years. Even their sex offender registry has limited use (certain jobs, housing restrictions etc.); it's not public like ours. Then again, they don't have freedom of speech (except in Victoria; sorta).
Could we have laws that restrict companies from considering criminal records past x number of years in the US? I'm not sure if that'd be possible in our currently legal system.
In America, you can't really restrict information, once it's published, except in certain limited cases (like when a case involves a minor).
[+] [-] consp|7 years ago|reply
We have that here (Netherlands). You are under no circumstances allowed to not hire someone because of past failures if the statue if limitation has expired or the sentence has been served. There might be restrictions on what you can do after you have served, but it is not up to the company to judge on this. This is one of the reasons the "right to be forgotten" exists.
You can however request a "VOG" (translation something like: "Confirmation of good behavior") in which a company (or volunteer organisation for instance) asks for very specific cases like "Allowed to work with children" or "Can have access to privileged data like personal data or medical". The request is handled by the government. You get a response like "No comment" if there is no problem or "Not granted" if you fail. This avoids the problem of having people judge your exact misdemeanors/behavior in the past and leaves it out of a private companies hands and allows the right to be forgotten to exist.
You can also request it and let the person reject the request on legal grounds, but this usually gets you into more problems than you would like.
There is one "but". For higher security clearances (like for working for the state department equivalent) they are allowed to look further back and are allowed to view data from further back and do proper background checks forcing specific issues to come to the light of day. But that check is way more complex than a simple "VOG".
[+] [-] omeid2|7 years ago|reply
I think the issue of freedom of speech is much more nuanced than that.
For example, even in places with "absolute freedom of speech", which I suspect is what you're implying, there is defamation laws that forbids certain kind of speech. There is also laws around hate speech and so forth.
[+] [-] eli|7 years ago|reply
Yes, these laws exist in many places in the US often under the name "ban the box"
Here in DC, it is illegal for me to obtain an applicant's criminal record until after I've made an offer and I cannot withdraw an offer simply because the applicant has a record.
I think SF and NYC have some version of this as well.
[+] [-] sschueller|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wcunning|7 years ago|reply
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/15/judge-orders-la-times-to...
[+] [-] yadaeno|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkai|7 years ago|reply
However, once this practice becomes routine, it will no longer be the case.
[+] [-] anothergoogler|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessaustin|7 years ago|reply
I'd say that last part is the part that got LAT in trouble... I rarely support the whole "under seal" thing, especially when it's in order to protect a corrupt dirtbag cop, but this "ask for forgiveness not permission" stuff won't fly with many judges...
But yeah, this guy is scum. Not only has he gleefully profited from both sides of the ruinous Drug War, but his police status has allowed him to escape the draconian punishments that normal people suffer.
[+] [-] promopacket|7 years ago|reply
https://archive.is/g8jV7
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wyldfire|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1996|7 years ago|reply
I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
[+] [-] njharman|7 years ago|reply
Some of those I agree with. Some I don't. Point is Supreme Court has rightly ruled Free Speech is not a absolute right. It does not trump all other rights. Nor all the duties/responsibilities we put onto governments.
[+] [-] pietroglyph|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] latch|7 years ago|reply
To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope.
I think it's good to be vigilant about these things and scrutinize judges and officials though.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pvg|7 years ago|reply
It's their actual job.
[+] [-] mr_spothawk|7 years ago|reply
I think you mean "double-plus wrong".
[+] [-] kuon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pasbesoin|7 years ago|reply
Of course, they may well seek to quash such publicity. After all, who's going to make a deal with a system so incompetent it can't keep a sealed record safe from its own negligent mis-handling?
[+] [-] newswriter99|7 years ago|reply
https://www.pacer.gov/
It's an extremely useful resource for information gathering.
[+] [-] billpg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DrJones1098|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] squirrelicus|7 years ago|reply
Edit: spelling. TIL it's not spelled "characature".
[+] [-] king_nothing|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bizarro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GavinMcG|7 years ago|reply
The fact that you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean the judge acted wrongly. There's nothing to be held accountable for.
The reasoning or decision itself, on the other hand, will go through the processes of review that almost all judicial decisions go through.
[+] [-] danso|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajross|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] M_Bakhtiari|7 years ago|reply
Zero sympathy for them having been rangebanned from their site.
[+] [-] pseingatl|7 years ago|reply
I believe it was in the Noriega case where the first order to CNN not to publish was made. It was overturned by the 11th Circuit.