NY Dems propose "right to be forgotten"

[dead0man]

link to dumbassery

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank the deity of your choice that we, unlike those dumbies across the pond, have a 1st Amendment so dumb sh**t like this will never fly here.  Still, kind of scary that there are Dems in NY stupid enough to think this might get through.

[Holmes]

So are you going to argue your point as to why you're against it or are you just gonna "old man yells at clouds" it and call Europeans dumbies?

[dead0man]

I have to defend this....to an American?  le sigh

[publicunofficial]

You get mad over the dumbest things.

[Beet]

I think dead0man indicated he opposes it on 1st amendment grounds. What's the argument for it?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

New York continues to be America's best state

[courts]

i think there are valid concerns over arrest records and things like that which are misleading. but overall i agree with you. the law sounds overly vague and broad in scope.

[dead0man]

I think dead0man indicated he opposes it on 1st amendment grounds. What's the argument for it?

when Europe did this a few years ago I did the same thread.  As far as I can tell, their main argument for it was

You must be logged in to read this quote.

idk, I'm an American and I want privacy and data protection, of course these laws do neither.  Not sure why Euros hate transparency though.

[Beet]

I think dead0man indicated he opposes it on 1st amendment grounds. What's the argument for it?

when Europe did this a few years ago I did the same thread.  As far as I can tell, their main argument for it was

You must be logged in to read this quote.

idk, I'm an American and I want privacy and data protection, of course these laws do neither.  Not sure why Euros hate transparency though.

That's not even an argument.

[dead0man]

indeed

[Mercenary]

I like it.

[kyc0705]

I like it.

[Holmes]

I still don't have an argument against this from dead0man other than "Europeans suck".

[dead0man]

I still don't have an argument against this from dead0man other than "Europeans suck".

It shouldn't be against the law to say facts, but the fact that you couldn't figure that out on your own doesn't leave me very confident that you'll understand it out now.


Now we'll keep waiting for someone to come up with a reason why this law is a good idea.  Since this is thread two on the subject and we still don't have anything leads me to think you all got nuthin'.

[dead0man]

yep, nuthin'

[emailking]

]It shouldn't be against the law to say facts,

So then are you at least ok with the forced removal of "inaccurate" information? From the part you quote, it says under this law you'd have the right to request inaccurate information be removed.

[dead0man]

There are already laws dealing with that.  They are constitutional, unlike this.



Again, I must stress how deeply troubling it is that the left (of all people) are FOR this kind of thing.  I never thought I'd say this, but I miss hippies.  Sure, they are lazy, sell you sh**tty drugs and smell bad, but at least they had a natural distrust of the state and knew freedom was better than the alternative.

[angus]

one of them famously sung "Freedom's just another word for 'nothing left to lose'."

unenforceable, cumbersome, and unnecessary.  And, yeah, when it becomes politically (and legally!) incorrect even to mention another person's name, it's probably time for armed revolt.

[emailking]

There are already laws dealing with that.  They are constitutional, unlike this.



Again, I must stress how deeply troubling it is that the left (of all people) are FOR this kind of thing.  I never thought I'd say this, but I miss hippies.  Sure, they are lazy, sell you sh**tty drugs and smell bad, but at least they had a natural distrust of the state and knew freedom was better than the alternative.

So that's a yes I think.

But what if the aggregation of  "irrelevant", "inadequate", or "excessive" information gives a misleading impression, to the point of being inaccurate, even if each piece of information on it's own is a fact? I think that's what this law is trying to get at.

I get your free speech argument. But I feel like there can be some middle ground between "you can't say anything bad about anyone", and allowing google search results paint someone as a monster because of something that was blown out of proportion. It's not an issue for most, but some people have had their lives destroyed because of the internet.

The law is probably broader than I'd be comfortable with. But I don't think it's as black and white as you make it sound.

[cinyc]

This bill will hopefully go nowhere.  It was proposed by the Democrat Assemblyman who managed to lose the special election for Anthony Weiner's congressional seat after Weiner's first sexting scandal.  

It raises significant First Amendment concerns.  Why should my right to free speech be denied because you acted like an idiot?  Why can't I talk about how you acted like an idiot?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I still don't have an argument against this from dead0man other than "Europeans suck".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Holmes]

I still don't have an argument against this from dead0man other than "Europeans suck".

It shouldn't be against the law to say facts, but the fact that you couldn't figure that out on your own doesn't leave me very confident that you'll understand it out now.


Now we'll keep waiting for someone to come up with a reason why this law is a good idea.  Since this is thread two on the subject and we still don't have anything leads me to think you all got nuthin'.

I was being facetious, but I also wanted you to actually argue your point instead of just saying "this is dumb". I wanted your reasoning because you created the thread and expected more in the OP.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

So uh, this sounds like something Trump would be mighty happy to take advantage of.

[cinyc]

So uh, this sounds like something Trump would be mighty happy to take advantage of.

It sounds like something any smart politician or aspiring politician would be happy to take advantage of.  Which is a very good reason to be against it.  The last thing politicians need is less scrutiny of their questionable past.  And then there's the issue that some politicians' past might be treated differently than others, based on their politicial predilections.

[dead0man]

I still don't have an argument against this from dead0man other than "Europeans suck".

It shouldn't be against the law to say facts, but the fact that you couldn't figure that out on your own doesn't leave me very confident that you'll understand it out now.


Now we'll keep waiting for someone to come up with a reason why this law is a good idea.  Since this is thread two on the subject and we still don't have anything leads me to think you all got nuthin'.

I was being facetious, but I also wanted you to actually argue your point instead of just saying "this is dumb". I wanted your reasoning because you created the thread and expected more in the OP.

k....