The EU's Right to Be Forgotten is deeply flawed. While this is an edge case, it's emblematic of the problem.
The EU’s Right to Be Forgotten Is Now Being Used to Protect Murderers – Center for Data Innovation
74 view(s)
https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net
This article is profoundly dishonest. The right to be forgotten can't impede on free speech because the publications remain published, there's no takedown of the information. What the right to be forgotten does is compelling search engines to stop returning some results when the question is the name of a person. For instance, if you're looking for say a prospective employee, you wouldn't know s/he was the victim of something years ago. But if you were searching for the news at some place at a certain date, you'd find the article(s). The ressources don't have to be completely de-linked. Free speech means just that : the right to speak or write in public. That doesn't mean you have a right to be read or listened to.
Now, when a convicted criminal has served time, s/he is supposedly redeemed, right ? Unless there are some restrictions to their freedom, it's nobody's business to pry into that. Prospective employers can ask for a rap sheet (in Europe) with records of prior convictions, and you can't run a business after certain types of crime. Probation officers and LEO are tasked with implementing the restrictions where applicable. Otherwise the simple idea of reinserting ex-convicts in society is moot.
The article defends the right to be nosy, not free speech. This is nauseating. We europeans paid a hefty price to "good neighbours" doing "the right thing" 70 years ago. And we haven't forgotten.
+Manuel Viet Saying that the RtbF doesn't impede speech because it "only" asks for search engines to no longer link to articles containing the information in question is disingenuous. It's like saying books aren't being censored when to throw out the card catalog and book case tags. Information that is hidden is information that is suppressed.
The idea that only law enforcement and judicial officials have a need or use case for conviction data, and that anyone else who has a curiosity about such information related to an individual is just being "nosy" is not only far too trusting of the authorities, it strikes me as positively Orwellian.
+Dave Hill : it doesn't impede on speech because you can write, publish, and remain published. That's the definition of free speech.
The subject of the obligation is not the person speaking, so again, it's not a free speech case.
There are restrictions to what's considered free speech (in the US sense) in the EU, for instance listings of Nazi memorabilia are censored. They are completely taken down. Hate speech towards some minorities too. It's completely different.
And you are distorting what I said after. Not only LEOs have a sufficient interest to see the conviction record. Employers too can request that, except when some parts are sealed (but you do have sealed record in the US too), and some others on a need to know basis.
But for the general public this is simply curiosity, and this isn't supported by law.
+Manuel Viet as an American, I might be ignorant and you can explain this for me.
A quick google for recidivism rates in Europe yielded studies like this one (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472929/), which showed rates for several countries. Your statement was this: "Now, when a convicted criminal has served time, s/he is supposedly redeemed, right?" I think if we can use these rates as a proxy for "redemption" (whatever that might mean, but as a law-abiding citizen I would like it to mean "will not offend again"), then no, I don't see how we can suppose that most of the time. As far as I know, these rates are not broken down by type of crime, but I'm confident that for any given crime, the number isn't 0%.
If I want someone to watch over my children, or manage my finances, or sell me something expensive (a house, a vehicle, etc.), no LEO or employer enters into that agreement, yet assuring trust is still essential. I'm not going to be less "nosy" when I try to find if the other party is trustworthy – I'm just going to have to work harder to find out.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472929/
+Manuel Viet " it doesn't impede on speech because you can write, publish, and remain published. That's the definition of free speech."
If the speech is intentionally hidden, then it is not free, any more than the "free speech zones" beloved by authoritarian politicians ("Let them hold their protests way over there where I don't have to see them and the cameras won't have a shot of them") aren't free speech, either.
+Bill Garrett : no system is perfect. The idea from a criminology standpoint would be to reach a point where reiteration is no more likely among the ex-cons population than first time offense in the general population. Now it's not the case anywhere for a lot of reasons, mostly self-evident socioeconomic ones, and other more subtle biases. But rigging a system so that ex-cons are barred from holding jobs and homes is a surefire way to cause reiteration of criminal behaviors.
+Dave Hill : your opinion of what constitute free speech doesn't match even the overly broad US definition, to my knowledge. You're slightly mixing it up with the right to information, which is a whole another bag. And again twisted and distorted by this article, because the information by nature and in essence is in close temporal proximity to the events it describes. The RTBF on the other hand happens ex post facto, long after the right to freely inform has already been used to its usefulness. But let's agree to disagree. I'm not going to sway you, and you're not going to convince me.
+Manuel Viet I understand that no system is perfect, and this sounds like an admirable goal. What I disagree with is the question of who bears the costs and risks of transitioning to that time – the people who have already committed crimes, or the people who have not?
I'm not aware of any facet of the "right to be forgotten" legislation that actually bars ex-cons from getting jobs and homes. Does one exist? If you're talking about an extra-legal stigma, I certainly know that it exists in the United States, and wouldn't be surprised to know it's found elsewhere too. At least from personal experience, what helps people overcome this sort of thinking is more information, not less.