4 ms·

| But what about Google? News archives? Mugshots.com? “It’s impossible to expunge information in this cyber-age,” I would think once you have the record offici

| But what about Google? News archives? Mugshots.com? “It’s impossible to expunge information in this cyber-age,” I would think once you have the record officially expunged, any publication (print, video, web) that shows you as a criminal is now officially libeling against you, giving you the option to file a suit.

ececconi 11y ago
Most places don't show you as a criminal, they show you got arrested.
downandout 11y ago
Sadly, this isn't the case. Google proudly and prominently features results from ripoffreport.com, which is nothing more than a cesspool of millions of pages of unfounded libel. Not only can Google not be sued over this, RipoffReport.com itself has won every lawsuit ever filed against it.
- motdiem 11y ago
  Yes - Reply all recently made an episode about ripoffreport that is interesting https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/ https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/
  - downandout 11y ago
    Interesting. I was very happy to hear that someone doxed him and he had to move as a result.
- necessity 11y ago
  Glad to see there's still some respect for freedom of speech, people like to fight against it nowadays. Lack of credibility works better than any gag order, specially in the internet where gag orders and similar are, fortunately, useless.
  - downandout 11y ago
    This scumbag Ed Magedson, the owner of RipoffReport, is abusing the law in order to run a massive extortion scheme. You do have freedom of speech; you do not have the right to libel others and attempt to extort them. You sound almost like you are associated with this site, as I cannot imagine that anyone else would defend it.
    - dang 11y ago
      > You sound almost like you are associated with this site Your comment was borderline to begin with, but turning it into an attack against another user is a clear breach of civility. Please don't do this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
      - downandout 11y ago
        I realize that your opinion is the only one that matters, however for the record I wasn't attacking this user. I suggested that because they were defending the indefensible, they may have ulterior motives. I don't see how this could be considered an attack - it's more like a mild observation.
        tptacek 11y ago
        https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20shill&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20shill&sort=byPop...
        downandout 11y ago
        As I said, his opinion is what matters, but I stand on my previous comment.
danso 11y ago
In the past, when someone's name has been cleared or expunged, publications have not been required to tear up old copies of back issues...because of course that would be a bit unfeasible...nor have they been required to publish a change in a person's status...to use an extreme case, a newspaper that covered OJ Simpson's arrest and arraignment would not necessarily have to cover the verdict of his criminal trial. But things are of course different in the Internet age. Should a newspaper be required to retroactively delete or correct its archives? And under what conditions? It can be argued that it's worth it, when maintaining a public record, to know what happened in the past, as long as it is clearly labeled as being in the past. But either way, I don't think it's a good law to say that once your record is expunged, you get to sue everyone who hasn't updated their archives/articles for libel. In the same way that (theoretically), site operators do not automatically get sued when copyrighted material appears on their site.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  "Information in this publication is accurate and correct to the best of our knowledge as of the date of publication". That your record is expunged now doesn't mean that it once was a part of your record.
frobozz 11y ago
If, after the expungement, someone were to publish a report of your arrest, with the specific purpose of making you look bad, you may have a case. However, we're talking about information published before the expungement continuing to exist after the official expungement. If the defendant claims that you are a criminal, then you have a case. However, you'd have a case anyway if your arrest hadn't led to a conviction, even if the arrest record is still public. If, on the other hand, they only claim that you were arrested, and have a photo of the arrest taking place and/or a copy of the original police report of your arrest, then they're provably telling the truth. In the absence of negligence or malice, you won't get damages awarded anyway. So even if they can't prove the truth of their statement, but can prove that they were acting on reliable information at the time of publication, and you can't prove that they were acting maliciously by keeping the information public, then the damage is irreparably done. Even if you can prove that, will you be able to prove that that particular publication (as opposed to any other publisher of arrest records) was responsible for the damage done to your lifestyle or livelihood (or even that such damage was actually caused) such that sufficient compensatory damages are awarded? Unless a potential employer sends you a rejection letter saying "we chose the other candidate, because we think you're a criminal, having read this report on website X", you'll have a hard time proving that to be why they didn't hire you. Some sources might also come under Innocent Dissemination (Google Cache, Wayback Machine). (IANAL obviously, and I'm talking about English law, because Libel Tourism is/was a thing due to the degree to which it favours the plaintiff)
JoshTriplett 11y ago
In reasonable jurisdictions, truth is a complete defense against libel. That would include truthful reporting of arrest records, charges, convictions, imprisonment, etc. And with dates attached, those facts don't suddenly become incorrect in the future; the record existed as of one date, and the government expunged it on another date, both of which remain factual information.

ececconi 11y ago

Most places don't show you as a criminal, they show you got arrested.

downandout 11y ago

Sadly, this isn't the case. Google proudly and prominently features results from ripoffreport.com, which is nothing more than a cesspool of millions of pages of unfounded libel. Not only can Google not be sued over this, RipoffReport.com itself has won every lawsuit ever filed against it.

motdiem 11y ago
Yes - Reply all recently made an episode about ripoffreport that is interesting https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/ https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/
- downandout 11y ago
  Interesting. I was very happy to hear that someone doxed him and he had to move as a result.
necessity 11y ago
Glad to see there's still some respect for freedom of speech, people like to fight against it nowadays. Lack of credibility works better than any gag order, specially in the internet where gag orders and similar are, fortunately, useless.
- downandout 11y ago
  This scumbag Ed Magedson, the owner of RipoffReport, is abusing the law in order to run a massive extortion scheme. You do have freedom of speech; you do not have the right to libel others and attempt to extort them. You sound almost like you are associated with this site, as I cannot imagine that anyone else would defend it.
  - dang 11y ago
    > You sound almost like you are associated with this site Your comment was borderline to begin with, but turning it into an attack against another user is a clear breach of civility. Please don't do this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
    - downandout 11y ago
      I realize that your opinion is the only one that matters, however for the record I wasn't attacking this user. I suggested that because they were defending the indefensible, they may have ulterior motives. I don't see how this could be considered an attack - it's more like a mild observation.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20shill&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20shill&sort=byPop...
        downandout 11y ago
        As I said, his opinion is what matters, but I stand on my previous comment.

danso 11y ago

In the past, when someone's name has been cleared or expunged, publications have not been required to tear up old copies of back issues...because of course that would be a bit unfeasible...nor have they been required to publish a change in a person's status...to use an extreme case, a newspaper that covered OJ Simpson's arrest and arraignment would not necessarily have to cover the verdict of his criminal trial. But things are of course different in the Internet age. Should a newspaper be required to retroactively delete or correct its archives? And under what conditions? It can be argued that it's worth it, when maintaining a public record, to know what happened in the past, as long as it is clearly labeled as being in the past. But either way, I don't think it's a good law to say that once your record is expunged, you get to sue everyone who hasn't updated their archives/articles for libel. In the same way that (theoretically), site operators do not automatically get sued when copyrighted material appears on their site.

FireBeyond 11y ago
"Information in this publication is accurate and correct to the best of our knowledge as of the date of publication". That your record is expunged now doesn't mean that it once was a part of your record.

frobozz 11y ago

If, after the expungement, someone were to publish a report of your arrest, with the specific purpose of making you look bad, you may have a case. However, we're talking about information published before the expungement continuing to exist after the official expungement. If the defendant claims that you are a criminal, then you have a case. However, you'd have a case anyway if your arrest hadn't led to a conviction, even if the arrest record is still public. If, on the other hand, they only claim that you were arrested, and have a photo of the arrest taking place and/or a copy of the original police report of your arrest, then they're provably telling the truth. In the absence of negligence or malice, you won't get damages awarded anyway. So even if they can't prove the truth of their statement, but can prove that they were acting on reliable information at the time of publication, and you can't prove that they were acting maliciously by keeping the information public, then the damage is irreparably done. Even if you can prove that, will you be able to prove that that particular publication (as opposed to any other publisher of arrest records) was responsible for the damage done to your lifestyle or livelihood (or even that such damage was actually caused) such that sufficient compensatory damages are awarded? Unless a potential employer sends you a rejection letter saying "we chose the other candidate, because we think you're a criminal, having read this report on website X", you'll have a hard time proving that to be why they didn't hire you. Some sources might also come under Innocent Dissemination (Google Cache, Wayback Machine). (IANAL obviously, and I'm talking about English law, because Libel Tourism is/was a thing due to the degree to which it favours the plaintiff)

JoshTriplett 11y ago

In reasonable jurisdictions, truth is a complete defense against libel. That would include truthful reporting of arrest records, charges, convictions, imprisonment, etc. And with dates attached, those facts don't suddenly become incorrect in the future; the record existed as of one date, and the government expunged it on another date, both of which remain factual information.