7 ms·
Yes this is a main difference between US and Europe, in the US there is a strong first amendment, in Europe there is no such thing, many of these countries have
by doe88 9y ago
Yes this is a main difference between US and Europe, in the US there is a strong first amendment, in Europe there is no such thing, many of these countries have strong defamation and hate speech laws, as well as in this case the european law of right to be forgotten. Im European but Im envious of the first amendment, for all its faults I think it's better.
- CaptainZapp 9y agoI get a bit weary about companies abusing the first ammendment in order to lie to and fleece their customers and the public.
- bitwize 9y agoGiven the fact that the U.S. has no useful bans on hate speech and that has allowed white supremacism to grow and fester within this country to the point where Trump is now President, you might want to rethink that.
- gowld 9y agoYou would learn a lot from a summer travel across Europe.
- nugi 9y agoFree speech isn't worth it because some people think they are better than others? Is that your argument, or am I misunderstanding?
- bitwize 9y agoFree speech is important, but like any right it must be balanced against society's interests -- in this case, the interest society has in not going full Nazi. Again, in Germany's case. Despite having bans on certain kinds of speech, Germany is overall freer than the USA, and scores higher on every free-press index that matters.
- userbinator 9y agoThe "right to be forgotten" just seems far too close to "right to rewrite history", which is greatly disturbing. To borrow computer science terminology, I think "history should be append-only."
- 794CD01 9y agoA nice thought to have, but it does make history less useful when you have so many constantly attempting to append bad data. Eventually you fork the blockchain and get multiple histories.
- ubernostrum 9y agoThe US has the right to be forgotten. It's just expressed through contracts (settlement non-disclosure agreements, mandatory arbitration clauses, etc.) instead of through a general law granting the right, and is only available to those with the resources to force others into such contracts.
- lmkg 9y agoThere is also such a thing as having a record expunged. That is non-contractual, although still more available to people with resources to navigate the legal system.
- nraynaud 9y agoI don’t really understand this point of view. There is a system to check people’s legal records, there is a system for the police to check people’s past if they apply to some sensitive job (security, banking, etc.) On the other side google censors a lot of stuff all the time for various reasons (political stuff from ISIS, copyrighted material, random YouTube videos), and the first amendment does only mandate that the state can’t curb free speech, not private companies that do it all the time.
- rootlocus 9y agoThe reality is much more nuanced than that. The online "records" could be fake, out of context, outdated, etc. The internet isn't a git log which you can navigate however you like. You don't get to see the latest revision and on demand diffs. Online, you happen to stumble upon pieces of information. And, as subjective humans, those (usually outdated and out of context) pieces of information often leave the wrong impression. The law enforcement agencies keep track of what's important regarding my history, not google. And you shouldn't feel entitled to information about myself which I don't want to be made public.
- rev_null 9y agoI think it's also worth noting that the US does have laws against slander and libel. I feel like this article missed that the "right to be forgotten" is meant to cover speech that is true.
- nitwit005 9y agoThe speech, falsely accusing someone of a crime, is illegal in the US, EU, and pretty much everywhere else. It's not exactly a free speech issue, at least in the conventional sense.