5 ms·

I don’t think people should be able to cover up the truth. That’s rotten. If there are lies about you, that’s covered by slander law. Not letting others know t

by donatj 7y ago

I don’t think people should be able to cover up the truth. That’s rotten. If there are lies about you, that’s covered by slander law. Not letting others know things that are true that reflect poorly on you is though is a different story. Take for instance the since-freed murderers who have used the law to hide their past actions. I don’t think that is something you should have the right to ask the world to forget.

krastanov 7y ago
I might be missing the forest for the trees here, but I strongly dislike your example. In a country with a working justice system, the expectation is that after you are done with your prison sentence you are rehabilitated. Making it more difficult for ex-cons to reenter society only leads to further recidivism. I am aware that the US does not have such a justice system, but for many countries in Northwest Europe this is a reality and this law makes sense there. Basically, I have no problem with only law-enforcement having a record of the past mistakes of reformed people, assuming that 1) law enforcement is actually "serving and protecting" and 2) the justice systems ensures a high fraction of cons are actually reformed.
- hartator 7y ago
  But I don’t think you should be put in jail for telling the truth. It’s basically what this law is about.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Truth isn't an absolute defense. If you privately record someone without permission, you don't get to share that just because it's true.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      And in the US, when dealing with private individuals (not the government's ability to collect and use information), the situations where truth isn't an absolute defense are extremely rare. Even the unidirectional right of private recording varies from state to state. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between the US and much of Europe. I'm not sure precisely from where it arises (though I suspect it stems from a combination of the US government tracing its historical roots to Enlightenment-era thinking on personal liberty and the English government having a law against sedition; the American colonies organizing a rebellion in spite of that law).
    - hartator 7y ago
      Actually in the US in most states, you can.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        Not if the recording doesn't have you in it.
- paggle 7y ago
  The Norwegians can hire murderers as babysitters, as a reactionary American I would rather not.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Are you saying they should be in prison? If they should be in prison then the countries don't differ. If they shouldn't be in prison then they probably won't make a worse babysitter. It was a very extreme circumstance that they regret.
    - seisvelas 7y ago
      I think he's suggesting they went to prison and were released, and he'd like to be able to access someone's criminal record before hiring them as a babysitter.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        I understand that, yes. But is the implication that they were released incorrectly? There's nothing that makes murder specifically relevant to babysitting. If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job. So they'd be unhireable. Which in practice is more or less the same as "they should still be in prison".
        paggle 7y ago
        I personally think that no murderer should ever be released from prison, no matter how rehabilitated. However, given that this is not policy, I would rather have released murderers working in the oil fields or sawmills, or anywhere very far from me, not in my home with my fucking kid.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        So then would you agree that when it comes to people that should have been released, you don't need to know what their past crimes were? At least when they're not specifically relevant to the job?
thfuran 7y ago
That seems to be inspiring a lot of obfuscutory controversy. Take instead, for instance, a contractor with tons of negative reviews or lawsuits brought by former clients and who doesn't want any of that information posted anywhere.
StreamBright 7y ago
I see. When a neo-nazi builds a database of the jewish population and it gets indexed by Google or somebody else you are totally ok with it because it is the truth and it is not covered by slander law. Or you just did not think about this?

by donatj 7y ago

krastanov 7y ago

I might be missing the forest for the trees here, but I strongly dislike your example. In a country with a working justice system, the expectation is that after you are done with your prison sentence you are rehabilitated. Making it more difficult for ex-cons to reenter society only leads to further recidivism. I am aware that the US does not have such a justice system, but for many countries in Northwest Europe this is a reality and this law makes sense there. Basically, I have no problem with only law-enforcement having a record of the past mistakes of reformed people, assuming that 1) law enforcement is actually "serving and protecting" and 2) the justice systems ensures a high fraction of cons are actually reformed.

hartator 7y ago
But I don’t think you should be put in jail for telling the truth. It’s basically what this law is about.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Truth isn't an absolute defense. If you privately record someone without permission, you don't get to share that just because it's true.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    And in the US, when dealing with private individuals (not the government's ability to collect and use information), the situations where truth isn't an absolute defense are extremely rare. Even the unidirectional right of private recording varies from state to state. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between the US and much of Europe. I'm not sure precisely from where it arises (though I suspect it stems from a combination of the US government tracing its historical roots to Enlightenment-era thinking on personal liberty and the English government having a law against sedition; the American colonies organizing a rebellion in spite of that law).
  - hartator 7y ago
    Actually in the US in most states, you can.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Not if the recording doesn't have you in it.
paggle 7y ago
The Norwegians can hire murderers as babysitters, as a reactionary American I would rather not.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  Are you saying they should be in prison? If they should be in prison then the countries don't differ. If they shouldn't be in prison then they probably won't make a worse babysitter. It was a very extreme circumstance that they regret.
  - seisvelas 7y ago
    I think he's suggesting they went to prison and were released, and he'd like to be able to access someone's criminal record before hiring them as a babysitter.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      I understand that, yes. But is the implication that they were released incorrectly? There's nothing that makes murder specifically relevant to babysitting. If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job. So they'd be unhireable. Which in practice is more or less the same as "they should still be in prison".
      - paggle 7y ago
        I personally think that no murderer should ever be released from prison, no matter how rehabilitated. However, given that this is not policy, I would rather have released murderers working in the oil fields or sawmills, or anywhere very far from me, not in my home with my fucking kid.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        So then would you agree that when it comes to people that should have been released, you don't need to know what their past crimes were? At least when they're not specifically relevant to the job?

thfuran 7y ago

That seems to be inspiring a lot of obfuscutory controversy. Take instead, for instance, a contractor with tons of negative reviews or lawsuits brought by former clients and who doesn't want any of that information posted anywhere.

StreamBright 7y ago

I see. When a neo-nazi builds a database of the jewish population and it gets indexed by Google or somebody else you are totally ok with it because it is the truth and it is not covered by slander law. Or you just did not think about this?