5 ms·
Of course you're still allowed to tell people what happened... To understand why some people argue for such a right, you need to appreciate that a report of yo
by matt4077 8y ago
Of course you're still allowed to tell people what happened...
To understand why some people argue for such a right, you need to appreciate that a report of your crime being the #1 Google hit for a search of your name is fundamentally different than some old acquaintances knowing something. You cannot escape the former, you can not make amends with an archive as you can with people, etc.
I know many people are reluctant to see a difference between situations when they exist on a continuum. And yes, there are scenarios every step of the way from "top Google hit" to "one guy knows and could tell if asked". What if you actively went around 20 years later telling the story? What if you kept commenting on every social media post of theirs?
But just because there's a gray area somewhere on this spectrum does not imply that we cannot recognise the extremes as distinct situations that require different rules.
- sk5t 8y agoAre you proposing that the rule should be "of course you're still allowed to tell people what happened, but only if you do so inefficiently and with little effect"? What if the top hit is a personal website describing the crime and its effects, rather than a town newspaper--should Google knock that personal website off the front page?
- Retric 8y agoWhy let people out of prison? What's the point of temporary incarceration without any form of rehabilitation? Presumably, if society is willing to let people return it must gain from their return. That cost benefit trade-off is the exact same one that occurs with your website example.
- sk5t 8y agoRehabilitation is certainly in society's interests--I don't imagine there's any argument to be made against it. However, the 1st amendment to the US Constitution puts strong limitations on the ability of the government to prevent or censor expression. How can the worthy goal of improving convicts' rehabilitation--albeit via suppressing news and opinion--possibly square with free speech?
- tedunangst 8y agoI wonder if this rule should apply to corporations. Should HN autokill comments calling Microsoft a convicted monopolist? They paid their fine, so all is good, right? Or what about bad yelp reviews? If you exterminate the cockroaches, can you delete all the bad reviews?
- cortesoft 8y agoYou can't force 'society' to change its opinion of former criminals via acts of law. The law can only govern a very limited scope of behavior, not peoples opinions or feelings. I agree our society does not treat ex-convicts well. But changing that requires a cultural shift, not a legal one. We should work on getting people to humanize ex-convicts, not legally trying to make them forget they are ex-convicts.
- matt4077 8y agoThank you for giving another example along that continuum. I admit that your example is in that gray area, and I have a hard time giving a definitive opinion on it. But, to reiterate the point: that does not proof that all such hypotheticals are undecidable. Imagine someone stealing 1 cent. Should they go to prison? Of course not! Now imagine them stealing 100 million cents, i. e. $1 million. Should they go to prison? Of course! Just because we're both going to have hard time saying which single cent of those 100 million made the difference between something to ignore and something to punish does in way mean theft should be legalised. And yes, changes in efficiency do matter. That's why even the US does not recognize a right to privately build, own and operate nuclear weapons.