3 ms·

We can legislate for whatever outcomes we desire. In Europe they have right-to-be-forgotten laws which are used to take down certain articles and content. I thi

• Lerc 3y ago
  Absolutely, and I think new legislation is in order. However legislating for what is desired is generally a terrible idea. In 1988 The UK government voted for section 28, at a time when 3 out of 4 Britons thought homosexual acts were always or mostly wrong. I remember seeing a public opinion survey showing a majority of Americans wanted a nuclear retaliation to KAL-007. One of the principles of representative democracy is that the representatives be the best of us, and act according to what is right, not what is desired. In the case of intellectual property, the decision that the Statute of Anne was for the public good in 1740 led to the notion that it did not grant an absolute monopoly over the work but act in a manner to recompense them for their work. This is the ancestor of fair use. (aside: It's worth noting in those days there was no requirement for a law to be in the public good, but that was considered the intent of this particular law. Philip Yorke made a much less agreeable decision on slavery.) So there are two debates that should be happening right now. What does the law say about this? and What should the law say about this?