Regarding censorship rape threats, defamation, bomb threats and other obvious and clear exceptions to free speech. Those are pretty well understood and covered by existing law. We are talking about suppressing true statements 1984 style and making the truth disappear ex post facto from the internet. This isn't the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater and you know it.
You still haven't addressed how easy it would be to create a public search engine of illegal truths nor the fact that there is so much info out there that anyone of importance will likely have access to all the info about people that they might want to hide. You wont be able to get a job at McDonald's without dealing with someone who pays a monthy fee for the truth about you.
We are talking about suppressing true statements 1984 style and making the truth disappear ex post facto from the internet. This isn't the same as shouting fire in a crowded theater and you know it.
No, it's the more like a court-ordered anonymity ruling protecting a vulnerable witness, or medical confidentiality, or a government removing old convictions for minor offences from someone's official background checks. All of these are well established principles in other parts of our legal and government systems, and the ethical arguments for them are well understood.
You still haven't addressed how easy it would be to create a public search engine of illegal truths
If you want to do that somewhere outside the jurisdiction of the EU, well, good luck with that. It's going to cost you a fortune for very little benefit, but if you believe so strongly in the ethics of this and your own legal system protects your freedom of speech above any other relevant rights, go ahead. But if you do that in the EU, you're going to jail. And you should probably expect that if you did openly challenge the legal principles of the EU in such a way, the EU actually would respond by censoring your site within its own territory, just as it ruled that Google (who know a thing or two about building a search engine, in case you didn't know) are required to comply with the same data protection rules as everyone else in the RTBF case.
nor the fact that there is so much info out there that anyone of importance will likely have access to all the info about people that they might want to hide
You keep saying this, but the whole point is that if you have a facility like a search engine making it easy to find that information then any damage caused by propagating or perpetuating the information will be greatly magnified.
The reality is that even in very important situations like a trial in court, a jury will not be told information that the law deems irrelevant or inadmissible in the case. And as I've been explaining in various other comments in this discussion, these legal principles have been developed over a very long period of time and apply far more widely than just Google and RTBF. If you want to challenge them, again go ahead, but you're not just taking on some online free speech issue, you're taking on generations of legal and ethical argument that have brought us to where we are today.
You wont be able to get a job at McDonald's without dealing with someone who pays a monthy fee for the truth about you.
That kind of argument is exactly why these legal protections are necessary.
Again, it's hardly news that allowing employers to discriminate on undesirable grounds is not healthy for society. We have literally passed laws to protect various categories of vulnerable people against other potential abuses in the employment system.
This is no different, except that it's not even close to the same scale and didn't even need laws of its own, just the same basic legal data protection principles that already applied. If you want to provide that monthly database of "truth" about someone to potential employers of that person, and your database in fact presents a misleading picture of that person because while true the information is also incomplete or out of context or otherwise not telling the whole story, you should expect to be taken to court and you should expect the court to award damages to the person harmed by your misrepresentation of them.
Ultimately it's the same principle that leads oaths in court to say not just "tell the truth" but something like "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". The problem here isn't someone telling inconvenient truths about someone else, it's misrepresentation that causes harm. Sometimes you can do that even by telling the truth, if you're only telling a partial truth, and our legal system recognises that.
A trial is a very specific situation whereby we deem that controlling how the facts are presented is deemed vital to an essential function of our justice system. The jurists are a tiny handful of individuals explicitly picked from those who hold no interest in the case and they are denied free access to public info only so long as the trial lasts.
It troubles me that you make little distinction between keeping a handful of disinterested parties in the dark for a few months so they can render an impartial verdict based on specific facts and giving the government the power to decide for all of us what truths are fit to be heard.
There are many orders of magnitude more difficulty and potential for abuse.
Your fantasies about fresh starts and protecting innocents from persecution are poorly founded daydreams. You are unwittingly pushing for us to lay the groundwork for tyranny and injustice in pursuit of a fools errand. While this is ripe for abuse it is bizarrely naive to believe that important people will willingly give up the ability to spy on us, collect information on us, and use that intelligence to make decisions about our lives.
Further where does it end? Must the internet consist only of truths that everyone can agree or in other words why is western Europe special and say Saudi Arabia not. Is it because you suppose you are reasonable and they are not?
I'm sorry, but you keep reading things into my posts that aren't there, and as a result you are attacking straw men in your responses.
All I am really arguing here is that if we have laws that protect privacy and limit use of personal data for whatever we consider good reasons in a certain jurisdiction, those laws must apply equally to online sources and data processing within that same jurisdiction. What those laws are and what reasons we might consider good enough to prioritise privacy over other relevant factors is a vast and complicated area, and today's situation was reached after numerous debates by smart and thoughtful people.
You seem to be interested in promoting some sort of anti-government agenda here. Don't trust the government, fear its power over the people, and all that. In other contexts, perhaps I might agree with some of your concerns there. But this issue, the one we're talking about right now, has really very little to do with excessive government power or state censorship. This is simply about enforcing laws we already have, made with good intentions, written in reasonable terms, and with the purpose of protecting vulnerable people from unjust harm. That is no more an abuse of government power than having police officers legally allowed to use force against you if you're literally beating up another person in the street, because that police action is an infringement of your right to free expression or something.
You have already spoken in favor of jailing developers in one jurisdiction because they don't implement legal censorship you favor in your jurisdiction regardless of the laws in their jurisdiction where exactly does THAT road end?
You have proposed we make a secret book of illegal truths unknowable to the general public that we cannot even protest effectively without running afoul of the laws prohibition of their publication.
If you simply support delisting such inconvenient truths from google then your work is for naught as I will simply publish a list of such truths. If you support whitewashing the entire internet of them then you have proposed we impliment 1984 for the sake of helping bad people move on with their lives after learning better. Backed up by threats of violence and imprisonment from your nations thugs.
Rather than buying their peace of mind with my freedom I propose you spend your own nations money to support programs that will employ, educate, and provide therapy to help them move on.
I have done no such things, and in fact several of my comments in this HN discussion have said very much the opposite of what you described, as anyone who cares to read a few comments up can immediately verify. You're just making stuff up now, and as such I see no value in continuing this thread any further.
You said if someone was to publish a search engine for illegal truths they would be jailed in the EU.
You are continually framing the right to silence others as some sort of right.
You ought to note that such rights normally derive from obligations to those whom you entrusted your data in the first place.
Your doctor nor his staff may share your medical information. Either explicitly in an agreement or implicitly by law you gained the right to expect that your information remain confidential when you became his patient.
When you mug someone and break their face no amount of jail time and rehabilitation obliges your victim nor society at large to silence.
You imagine all of society possesses an obligation that rightly attaches only to those with relevant relationships like employee/employer, doctor patient etc.
You cannot attach such an obligation without grossly limiting freedom and such an obligation attached to no human right I can imagine.
Your position isn't merely badly thought out its morally wrong. If you can no longer discuss it then I'll drop it.
You still haven't addressed how easy it would be to create a public search engine of illegal truths nor the fact that there is so much info out there that anyone of importance will likely have access to all the info about people that they might want to hide. You wont be able to get a job at McDonald's without dealing with someone who pays a monthy fee for the truth about you.