Ohio Senator Introduces Bill That Would Let Ex-Convicts Try To Erase Online Information About Their Arrest
from the the-internet-never-forgets dept
You may remember a story from last year about a convicted murderer in Germany trying to use a law that was designed to protect an individual's name and likeness from unwanted publicity, to demand Wikipedia remove all information about him, such as his murder conviction. Apparently, some US politicians think something similar is a good idea. Thomas O'Toole points us to a report of an Ohio state senator who has proposed a bill that would allow repeat offenders the ability to "delete their record" from public view, which (stunningly) might also require newspapers to remove all old articles about their arrests and convictions:Under threat of a $250,000 fine, the bill would require individuals, newspapers and other news media to delete stories from the Internet and their archives about the arrests and convictions of those who win expungement orders.As the article notes, this almost certainly violates the First Amendment and the concept of prior restraint. The state senator in question, Shirley Smith, claims that people are misinterpreting the bill, and it was not intended to apply to news stories (even though, as written, it certainly appears to do exactly that). Smith says that language requiring "business organizations" to not publish such information is actually targeted at former employers of individuals, saying they cannot disclose a conviction to potential new employers. The idea behind the bill is to make it easier for ex-convicts to get jobs. Of course, it's still difficult to see how disclosing factual information like that should ever be considered illegal.
If a party knowingly released information about a sealed conviction, they would face a $500,000 fine. The damages would double to $1 million if the banned information was available on the Internet.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ex-convicts, first amendment, free speech, ohio, prior restraint, shirley smith
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh Dear, here we go again !!! :)
Now Mike YOU KNOW that is not true, so why say it, if you had of read the article you linked us too, you would have read something like THIS:
(by)allowing nonviolent criminals with multiple convictions to apply to seal records documenting their offenses after five years of clean conduct.
I dont know mike, but do you really think murder is nonviolent crime ?????
******
As for 'repeat offenders', you CANNOT be a repeat offender, and not have offended for 5 years, (ie, "5 years of clean conduct").
Multiple convictions and repeat offender are two totally seperate things, AS YOU SHOULD WELL KNOW MIKE..
Whats the go, was the story not juicy enough for you, forcing you to sex it up a bit ?
Or do you expect most people here will not check your claims, and "sources", to find out if you are telling porkies or not.. :)
It would be great to see you get some facts right one day, but I dont hold high hopes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh Dear, here we go again !!! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh Dear, here we go again !!! :)
What do you think ?
"To the lay-man" who cares about the lay-man, but to YOU, you might not see a difference, but to most people there is a vast difference. Mabey you should even just google the terms to get a bit of an idea..
Ok, so you lazy,, cool..
Recidivism (Repeat offender)
IS the act of a person repeating an uindesirable behaviour after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behaviou, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior,
That people are REPEAT OFFENDERS, they get busted for a (usually specific crime) and once out of prison they REPEAT THE OFFENSE.
That is **NOT** what "multiple convictions" are, you can have multiple conviction and not even be remotely like a repeat offender.
And it has to be non-violet, and its not for repeat offenders, as they are offending repeatidly, and not being 'clean for 5 years'.
But if you go out on the town, you drink too much, you get caught speeding, and DUI, and you commit some other non-violent crimes, you may go to prison, and you may have multiple convictions.
But again, multiple convictions you can get at one instand, and easily be 'clean for 5 years'. A repeat offender, will offend within that 5 years, so he misses out, unless he changes his way, (and stops being a repeat offender).
So again, im right. The heading and the content and the implication that murderers would be able to take advantage of this law is simply not true, there is another term for when things are not true.. Can you work out what it is.
But again, you argument fails, (even for the lay-man), and its not the lay-man that decides these issues.
So please (mike) get your ducks in a row and facts right before sexing up articles.
And tell us why its a bad thing that a 21 year old who did something really stupid, on a big night out and had multiple NON-VIOLENT convictions (all from the same single incident). that his career and possible job prospects should be forever damaged.
And what if someone just does not like him (never happens to me !!).. ?? and just tries to hurt him,
Or what if you were going for the same position, it would be good to 'leak' some dirt on your competition to increase your chances.
Or is it that you just dont like the legal system protecting people who have commited low level crimes over 5 years ago, who have done their time, or paid their fines. But that is not enough for you ? you want to brand them for life because of one night on the town?
Repeat offender and multiple conviction are NOT the same things, totally different.. And Mike should be aware of that, he claims to talk to the beaks all the time.. !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh Dear, here we go again !!! :)
All those white collar bandits that deceived the public and government, all those politicians.
Bankers robbing the public deserve protection that is great.
Did you do something at 21 you regret Darryl? This ring a bell to you?
Besides for a country that have 30% of its population with some criminal record, job should not be a big problem because 1 in 3 persons in America are ex-convicts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh Dear, here we go again !!! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh Dear, here we go again !!! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh Dear, here we go again !!! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh Dear, here we go again !!! :)
Says the troll who ROUTINELY gets things wrong and then REDUSES to own up to it when called out on it. When you point it out to darryl, and demand an accounting, he invariably replies with some variation of "I see no need to answer your hate" or some concocts other avoidance. So, since you never answer for YOUR inaccuracies or lies,
FUCK
OFF.
Signed,
Internet Blog Comments everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup Pretty Silly
It looks like the related sections are defining cases where the court will seal documents for first time offenders or other cases.
I'm not sure how this would apply to a convicted murderer, but the concept of erasing every individual's and organization's memory does seem a bit off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yup Pretty Silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yup Pretty Silly
> concept of erasing every individual's and organization's memory
> does seem a bit off.
Not to mention the issue of jurisdiction. The article makes no mention of how Ohio plans to force web sites (like The Smoking Gun) based in other states to obey Ohio law. And that doesn't even touch the issue of international jurisdiction.
This happens every time a story like this pops up. The issue of jurisdiction and the impracticality (if not impossibility) of enforcement, which would make the proposed law nothing but a tremendous waste of money, is completely ignored by the journalist reporting the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone please stop the insanity
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTg3ODIwNjEy.html
Poor guy. His reputation will be forever scarred, and for what? A contract for a one-hit wonder? Someone must stop the record company insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think my head just exploded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1984 Imagery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coincidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coincidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this law useful for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To the Coward
Is this law useful for me ?
What type of question is that, what do you mean 'usefull'.
It guess its as usefull to me, as is the law on driving your car faster than the speed limit.
So you work it out !..
But I dont think any law is usefull to me or anyone, unless that law has been applied on your behalf.
Ie, if a law protects me from being killed by someone driving over the speed limit, or under the influence then that law is usefull me to. It kept me alive.
The law that says you are not allowed to kill other people, is probably usefull to me in that there is less chance im going to be killed by someone.
Why should anyone be punished by the court of public opinion, after they have made their mistake, and paid the price for that mistake.
What if its a your man, under age, caught drink driving, they do a search and find a small quantity of pot on him and a pipe. Bingo, in one hit a kid out on the town has multiple convictions.
But he is not a repeat offender, there is a difference, a massive one.
So AC, are laws useful for you ? Or would you prefer to have no laws, and no protection for citizens rights ?
I get the impression from many who post here, including Mike, that you all would love to live in the lawless wild west, where the biggest gun, and biggest balls wins the day.
Yea, that would be just great !!.. go for it. /sarc..
Its really astonishing that from sites like TD it appears US citizens have absolutely zero respect for others privacy or RIGHTS..
No wonder you are always at war with so many countries, (or yourselves).
Sometimes you want to be carefull what you wish for, sometimes you might get it, and it wont be anything like how you expected..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To the Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other law changes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers will not be required to remove old articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's Burt Masnick?
Where's that Burt Masnick guy. I hope he'll weigh in and provide some factual information like if Mike was dropped on his head as a child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, with cache's out there, archives, etc - that would make such a business worthless - unless of course, some law changes the playing field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond online
This sounds to me like they would also have to destroy any physical copies also.
On another note...
Someone who's record gets expunged will repeat and people will be outraged that it was allowed to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you say "1984"?
Who was the genius who said that getting content off the internet is like getting pee out of a swimming pool?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]