[kbenson]

> it might be only a matter of time before a court somewhere rules in the favor of a person found innocent who is suing to keep as many details of a particular murder off the Internet

Which in the context of "murders of unarmed civilians by law enforcement and subsequent acquittals" sounds bad, because it's possibly against your concept of justice, but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person and this is high in many search results, or people are defamed through libel and the jurisdiction doesn't allow allow for a legal remedy?

I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended? Freedom of speech is complicated, and not absolute in the United States. We have laws for libel and slander to prevent just this sort of thing, and I don't usually see those being called a bad idea. Perhaps that should be an indication that this issue isn't as black and white as it's often portrayed, and deserves a more moderate, considered solution.

[escapetech]

> but what about the other end of the spectrum, where baseless claims are leveled on a person.

You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record. The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

[kbenson]

> You are confusing imaginary baseless claims with matters of public record.

So your assertion is that no baseless claim can make it to court only to be defeated or dismissed later and become part of the public record?

> The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good, as with the right to be forgotten cases in the EU.

That's one potential danger. Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.

[escapetech]

> Let's not lose sight of other potential dangers just because we're focused on one that's getting a lot of attention in the moment.

Sure, the Cosby trial might be an example of another danger. He was found not guilty despite claims that were ultimately found by a jury of his peers to be baseless or questionable.

But this really isn't about the spectrum of abuse of allegations, but rather the danger in how someone may legally try to suppress publicly available information because of a particular court deeming it in the public interest to.

[jacquesm]

You are confusing a mistrial with a not-guilty verdict.

[escapetech]

Considering that the DA threw everything but the kitchen sink at the Cosby case, a retrial would be either unlikely or unfruitful, given the judge's intentional leaking of juror's names to the press and hinging his judicial career on a guilty verdict prior to the trial, a second trial could result in legitimate claims of malicious prosecution, making any conviction easy to appeal and ultimately overturn by a higher court.

[jacquesm]

The only thing that we have right now is a mistrial based on a hung jury, no more, no less.

What the judge did (which I agree was despicable) and what the DA did (which doesn't matter) has no bearing on whether or not there will be a re-trial in 4 months. Cosby will appeal if he's convicted so from that point of view you could skip the trial entirely, his best bet is that he may be found not guilty.

[leereeves]

Nothing imaginary about baseless claims.

False allegations are common enough that allegations shouldn't be reported until proven, but they are.

[IanCal]

> The potential danger of abuse is in allowing individuals/entities using the law to keep potentially unfavorable public records off from the Internet as a matter of public good

Off search engines, not the internet.

[thirdsun]

> I mean, if I seed the internet with 20 SEO optimized sites about how you're a murdering rapist, should Google's right to keep that in results be defended?

In my opinion it should.

It makes much more sense to fight the actual source of the offending content, those 20 SEO optimized sites containing false information or the company that counterfeits those products (in Google's case). By forcing Google to alter its index you're shooting the messenger and wrongfully consider the problem solved.

[kbenson]

It isn't an either or. You want to do both, because doing one or the other doesn't really solve the problem created. If you can't get the perpetrator for some reason, at least having a way to mitigate the damage is useful. In some cases that might be de-listing in the search engine, in others it might be making a service provider take action. The trick is to not give it undue power so it can be used as a bludgeon where it doesn't make sense, and that balancing act is actually the hard part, IMO.

[abc_lisper]

the only thing one can do now is to change their name :(