4 ms·

This isn't about dispensing justice. This is about my personal right to own my experience of my life and those I interact with. Saying that my anger over havi

This isn't about dispensing justice. This is about my personal right to own my experience of my life and those I interact with. Saying that my anger over having been abused by someone is no longer justified just because the courts have seen fit to expunge their records of the crime is deeply intrusive. The criminal court's job is to rectify the individual's relationship with the government. It does nothing to rectify the relationship between criminal and victim.

piker 8y ago
Part of the social contract does seem to dictate that the relationship between criminal and victim is governed by law. For example, if you were to respond to the attack by defending yourself in the moment, resulting in the assailant's death, you would potentially be free of any charges due to your right to defend yourself. However, if you were to wait a day (or, say, until after the assailant's release on what you perceived to be too short of a sentence) THEN assault that person, the law likely would be against you. You certainly have the right to continue to FEEL victimized, but query whether or not your right to act on those feelings after justice has been dispensed by the state isn't subject to the social contract with the state.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  That is quite the stretch - no one is arguing that I have the right to beat up my attacker years later. That portion of our interaction is governed by laws. However, talking about facts that have occurred is ALWAYS my legal right. This has nothing to do with the crime the person committed, or the time served, or any other punishment. I am allowed to talk about events, and the legal process is entirely separate. In fact, a simple example will make this clear. Imagine that 10 years ago, Joe did two things on a random monday - he beat up a guy, and he also stood someone up on a date. By your reasoning, if Joe served time and was released, we would no longer be able to talk about his crime. We couldn't tell people, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he beat up Steve really bad. Served 3 years for it. Be careful around him." What about the person he stood up on a date? Is she allowed to say, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he stood me up on a date. You should not go on a date with him" Is this also not allowed? Are we not allowed to talk about negative things people did more than X number of years ago? Or does it only apply to times you broke the law and were convicted, and served your time? That seems REALLY strange. We are allowed to talk about things for as long as we want. As long as we aren't committing libel or slander, we have free speech to tell people how we feel about other people, and we are allowed to use examples going back as far as we want. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
  - piker 8y ago
    >However, talking about facts that have occurred is ALWAYS my legal right. This has nothing to do with the crime the person committed, or the time served, or any other punishment. I am allowed to talk about events, and the legal process is entirely separate. It's only your legal right because the social contract says that it is. You can imagine a social contract that says once someone has been to prison for a crime, it is in fact against the law to refer to that crime ever having occurred. This is not advocating that reality, just suggesting it's a possible to conceive of a justice system with that set of values.
    - cortesoft 8y ago
      Right, but wouldn't that contract be very strange if it only applied to crimes that I went to jail for? Wouldn't that create a perverse incentive to get arrested for something if you want the thing to be forgotten? Or are we forced to not talk about ANYTHING bad that happened more than x number of years ago? Wouldn't that create a strange world where we create this illusion that everything was perfect x+1 years ago? The idea of the law saying we have to deny facts that are unpleasant to some people sounds like a distopia to me. I mean, yes, we can imagine that reality. Many countries do this, and punish people for talking about events that occurred but were embarrassing for the country or specific people. They are not healthy societies.
      - Thiez 8y ago
        > Wouldn't that create a perverse incentive to get arrested for something if you want the thing to be forgotten? I doubt it - if you were never convicted, you can probably sue the ones retelling the story for defamation. > Or are we forced to not talk about ANYTHING bad that happened more than x number of years ago? The whole 'right to be forgotten' thing is not even about forcing people not to talk about something. It's mostly about not having a mistake pop up as the first hit on google for the rest of someones life. You can talk about whatever you like, but you may not be allowed to publish whatever you want, if it would take away another persons chance at starting over. > Wouldn't that create a strange world where we create this illusion that everything was perfect x+1 years ago? No, and I have no idea why you would have that idea. Before internet search engines were a thing, few people would have the know-how, time, and motivation to look other people up in news archives. Did people believe that the past was perfect back then? Of course not! So why would that happen now? > The idea of the law saying we have to deny facts that are unpleasant to some people sounds like a distopia to me. But that's not what it is about! It's about not constantly bringing up old facts that have little relevance to the present so that people can improve their lives instead of getting in a downward spiral because of something bad in the past. Suppose a long time ago you once farted very loudly (by accident!) in a very inappropriate setting, such as during a funeral, when everyone was silent. Someone catches that moment on video. They upload it online. They tag it 'cortesoft? more like corteloud! #fart', and somehow it ends up being one of the top hits when people google your name. At some point in the future you apply for a job, and another candidate is chosen because the company don't want to risk their new employee farting loudly during business meetings. So your career has taken a dent, to balance your budget you have to eat beans most days of the week... Hey, it could happen. That funeral-fart is a fact, and therefor it must be published, in eternity! No matter that it was a one time thing, that you have been avoiding vegetables linked to flatulence for the past 15 years, and that you feel very sorry about it. To remove it from the internet is to create a dystopia. Any law that would permit people to take down such videos about them would lead to a strange world where the illusion is created that people didn't fart x+1 years ago. Okay, perhaps the example is just slightly ridiculous. But the point is that just because something is technically a fact, doesn't mean that it's necessary worth repeating forever.
DenisM 8y ago
Holding the grudge is helping no one, lest of all the victim. One could argue it's not an essential liberty, one we could dispense with for other gains in society. Maybe a better course of action for the victim is to have the traumatic memory zapped [1] and go back to normal life. [1] http://www.emdr.com/what-is-emdr/ http://www.emdr.com/what-is-emdr/
- LanceH 8y ago
  Your right to have an opinion of someone, speak facts freely and associate with who you wish are all fundamental rights which would be compromised by a "right to be forgotten."
  - DenisM 8y ago
    I agree with those being fundamental rights. I wonder if a balance of rights can be found between those and the right to be forgotten - some way to preserve the individual agency of the victim and to give the offender a second chance. It might be easier in the end to prohibit hiring discrimination based on criminal history same as its forbidden for other personal traits.
    - cortesoft 8y ago
      Giving people a second chance is not something that can mandated by law. Hell, the law doesn't even guarantee people a first chance. This is a cultural shift, and it needs to be fought in the court of public opinion, not actual courts.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  Look, I agree that it is not healthy to hold a grudge. My point is that I don't think it is our legal system's job to determine how long a grudge can be held. How long you should be angry for and how long you can talk about it is between the person and their therapist, not the courts.

piker 8y ago

Part of the social contract does seem to dictate that the relationship between criminal and victim is governed by law. For example, if you were to respond to the attack by defending yourself in the moment, resulting in the assailant's death, you would potentially be free of any charges due to your right to defend yourself. However, if you were to wait a day (or, say, until after the assailant's release on what you perceived to be too short of a sentence) THEN assault that person, the law likely would be against you. You certainly have the right to continue to FEEL victimized, but query whether or not your right to act on those feelings after justice has been dispensed by the state isn't subject to the social contract with the state.

cortesoft 8y ago
That is quite the stretch - no one is arguing that I have the right to beat up my attacker years later. That portion of our interaction is governed by laws. However, talking about facts that have occurred is ALWAYS my legal right. This has nothing to do with the crime the person committed, or the time served, or any other punishment. I am allowed to talk about events, and the legal process is entirely separate. In fact, a simple example will make this clear. Imagine that 10 years ago, Joe did two things on a random monday - he beat up a guy, and he also stood someone up on a date. By your reasoning, if Joe served time and was released, we would no longer be able to talk about his crime. We couldn't tell people, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he beat up Steve really bad. Served 3 years for it. Be careful around him." What about the person he stood up on a date? Is she allowed to say, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he stood me up on a date. You should not go on a date with him" Is this also not allowed? Are we not allowed to talk about negative things people did more than X number of years ago? Or does it only apply to times you broke the law and were convicted, and served your time? That seems REALLY strange. We are allowed to talk about things for as long as we want. As long as we aren't committing libel or slander, we have free speech to tell people how we feel about other people, and we are allowed to use examples going back as far as we want. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
- piker 8y ago
  >However, talking about facts that have occurred is ALWAYS my legal right. This has nothing to do with the crime the person committed, or the time served, or any other punishment. I am allowed to talk about events, and the legal process is entirely separate. It's only your legal right because the social contract says that it is. You can imagine a social contract that says once someone has been to prison for a crime, it is in fact against the law to refer to that crime ever having occurred. This is not advocating that reality, just suggesting it's a possible to conceive of a justice system with that set of values.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    Right, but wouldn't that contract be very strange if it only applied to crimes that I went to jail for? Wouldn't that create a perverse incentive to get arrested for something if you want the thing to be forgotten? Or are we forced to not talk about ANYTHING bad that happened more than x number of years ago? Wouldn't that create a strange world where we create this illusion that everything was perfect x+1 years ago? The idea of the law saying we have to deny facts that are unpleasant to some people sounds like a distopia to me. I mean, yes, we can imagine that reality. Many countries do this, and punish people for talking about events that occurred but were embarrassing for the country or specific people. They are not healthy societies.
    - Thiez 8y ago
      > Wouldn't that create a perverse incentive to get arrested for something if you want the thing to be forgotten? I doubt it - if you were never convicted, you can probably sue the ones retelling the story for defamation. > Or are we forced to not talk about ANYTHING bad that happened more than x number of years ago? The whole 'right to be forgotten' thing is not even about forcing people not to talk about something. It's mostly about not having a mistake pop up as the first hit on google for the rest of someones life. You can talk about whatever you like, but you may not be allowed to publish whatever you want, if it would take away another persons chance at starting over. > Wouldn't that create a strange world where we create this illusion that everything was perfect x+1 years ago? No, and I have no idea why you would have that idea. Before internet search engines were a thing, few people would have the know-how, time, and motivation to look other people up in news archives. Did people believe that the past was perfect back then? Of course not! So why would that happen now? > The idea of the law saying we have to deny facts that are unpleasant to some people sounds like a distopia to me. But that's not what it is about! It's about not constantly bringing up old facts that have little relevance to the present so that people can improve their lives instead of getting in a downward spiral because of something bad in the past. Suppose a long time ago you once farted very loudly (by accident!) in a very inappropriate setting, such as during a funeral, when everyone was silent. Someone catches that moment on video. They upload it online. They tag it 'cortesoft? more like corteloud! #fart', and somehow it ends up being one of the top hits when people google your name. At some point in the future you apply for a job, and another candidate is chosen because the company don't want to risk their new employee farting loudly during business meetings. So your career has taken a dent, to balance your budget you have to eat beans most days of the week... Hey, it could happen. That funeral-fart is a fact, and therefor it must be published, in eternity! No matter that it was a one time thing, that you have been avoiding vegetables linked to flatulence for the past 15 years, and that you feel very sorry about it. To remove it from the internet is to create a dystopia. Any law that would permit people to take down such videos about them would lead to a strange world where the illusion is created that people didn't fart x+1 years ago. Okay, perhaps the example is just slightly ridiculous. But the point is that just because something is technically a fact, doesn't mean that it's necessary worth repeating forever.

DenisM 8y ago

Holding the grudge is helping no one, lest of all the victim. One could argue it's not an essential liberty, one we could dispense with for other gains in society. Maybe a better course of action for the victim is to have the traumatic memory zapped [1] and go back to normal life. [1] http://www.emdr.com/what-is-emdr/ http://www.emdr.com/what-is-emdr/

LanceH 8y ago
Your right to have an opinion of someone, speak facts freely and associate with who you wish are all fundamental rights which would be compromised by a "right to be forgotten."
- DenisM 8y ago
  I agree with those being fundamental rights. I wonder if a balance of rights can be found between those and the right to be forgotten - some way to preserve the individual agency of the victim and to give the offender a second chance. It might be easier in the end to prohibit hiring discrimination based on criminal history same as its forbidden for other personal traits.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    Giving people a second chance is not something that can mandated by law. Hell, the law doesn't even guarantee people a first chance. This is a cultural shift, and it needs to be fought in the court of public opinion, not actual courts.
cortesoft 8y ago
Look, I agree that it is not healthy to hold a grudge. My point is that I don't think it is our legal system's job to determine how long a grudge can be held. How long you should be angry for and how long you can talk about it is between the person and their therapist, not the courts.