[mike_d]

Technically yes, but they are removed when a person is found not guilty or released without being charged thus protecting the innocent and falsely accused. The mugshot sites capitalize on this by scraping the government websites and archiving them forever - until you pay a removal fee.

Mugshots.com was doing exactly this until they got hit with extortion charges: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-mugshot-websi...

[Rasta1s]

" Technically yes, but they are removed when a person is found not guilty or released without being charged thus protecting the innocent and falsely accused. The mugshot sites capitalize on this by scraping the government websites and archiving them forever - until you pay a removal fee."

I don't believe anyone has an obligation to remove if someone found not guilty. The arrest happened, that's a fact. The information is public was made public by the government, that's also a fact.

From my understanding once something is made public you can't put it back in the bag. The government may do so on their own databases (Ie. Expungement, removal from government databases) but that doesn't apply to the public and especially not to publications who have first amendment right to publish public records.

I looked up the case you mentioned, it's still pending and the arguments made by the government are questionable

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180523/10224639892/calif...

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

Yeah, you're confusing "it's legal" with "it's not a depraved waste of one's humanity praying on the weakest of society".

That should be wholly obvious from the fact that these sites exist, out in the open. And from the fact that nobody argued what you're refuting.

(It's wrong, obviously, and such practices should be illegal, as they are in every civilised country and then some. But that's a separate matter)

[beerandt]

You're focusing on the "public record", when you need to be focusing on what constitutes blackmail, extortion, bribery, etc.

And while expungement is a complicated thing, it generally means that legally, it never happened. That has tons and tons of different legal interpretations even within one jurisdiction, depending on the who/what/why.

For instance you might be legally protected to claim you were never arrested when getting your driver's license, or applying for a job, but not on a concealed-carry permit application.

Depending on how a 3rd party distributes that expunged info, it could be considered libel or slander, especially once the publisher/speaker is made aware of the falsehood, or given a court order, yet persists.

Judges don't usually bother ordering newspapers to try and collect and destroy what's already been distributed, but...

Papers are certainly not allowed to reprint it or continue to publish/distribute after they've been given whatever constitutes legal notice. At least some jurisdictions will award punitive-damage-multipliers for continuing to distribute those falsehoods after some point where they should have known not to.

So if you're sending out an email newsletter, you might be ok by not sending that issue to anyone else.

But leaving the same content on a website would probably be considered "continuing to publish."

Which basically means: it's complicated.

And that doesn't even touch the blackmail or extortion elements.

[Rasta1s]

So much inaccuracies, where to begin?

No, libel/slander/defamation has nothing to do with distributing factual information, including expunged records.

Judges can't order you not to publish factual information. If they do, it's against the constitution and your First Amendment rights.

While a person can claim the event never happened, it doesn't change the fact that it did, and doesn't take your constitutional rights from talking about it.

On the extortion note, see the techdirt link.

[beerandt]

Expungements are different everywhere, but consider the next step of trial and conviction.

If a criminal is convicted of a felony, papers can publish that. If he's then exonerated, continuing to call him a convicted felon in future publications is a legal falsehood.

Saying he was tried, convicted, then exonerated (and possibly expunged), and is not a felon would likely be ok.

Which is why I said it highly depends on how it's said.

Because truth/falsehood determination is going to be decided as a matter of fact by the jury during trial, so intent, deception, and reputation will likely sway jurors. And the standard for a civil trial is the much easier "preponderance of evidence/causality" (as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" of criminal trials).

Your constitutional right is to be able to talk about it, but that doesn't mean there won't be a cost or penalty or damages for doing so.

As opposed to what many have recently claimed, the constitutional right of free speech does protect even false, hateful, or even threatening speech. That doesn't mean said speech will be free of consequences. Look at the history of reporters being jailed for refusing to name a source. Many times it's their right to do that, and many times they go to jail anyway.