NY Senator Pulls Sponsorship From 'Right To Be Forgotten' Bill, Effectively Killing It

from the bad-idea,-meet-backlash dept

The Right to Be Forgotten™ (New York State Edition) is dead. The Media Law Resource Center reports the senator behind the bill (Tony Avella) has pretty much killed it by striking the enactment clause. This means Avella is no longer sponsoring this bill, leaving it to wander the halls of state congress like a child whose father "just stepped out to get some smokes" ten years ago.

It's up to some other senator to step up and attach their name (and reputation) to an incredibly stupid law. I doubt there's a line forming, not after the negative press it's received. The Assembly version lives on, however. Assemblyman David Weprin has a matching proposal, with the same broad language that would make it a civil violation (paired with government-levied penalties) for any site/service providing "inadequate," "irrelevant," or "excessive" information someone wants stricken from the face of the internet.

This is Weprin's second attempt to institute a New York State-only "right to be forgotten." His previous version is identical to this year's model, which shows bad ideas are just as subject to stagnation as the merely mediocre ones. The difference this year is lots of attention has been paid to Avella's version -- which appears to be nothing but a quick copy-paste job with a new sponsor. The Senate version is an outcast. The Assembly version has merely been ignored for more than year.

There's zero chance this will become law in 2017. But, if Weprin's anything to go by, there's always next year. Until its eventual reintroduction, here's Ken White's (Popehat) take on the bill, which will hopefully be passed along to New York legislators for their consideration:

This bill is a constitutional and policy disaster that shows no sign that the drafters made any attempt whatsoever to conform to the requirements of the constitution. It purports to punish both speakers and search engines for publishing—or indexing—truthful information protected by the First Amendment. There's no First Amendment exception for speech deemed "irrelevant" or "inadequate" or "excessive," and the rules for punishing "inaccurate" speech are already well-established and not followed by this bill. The bill is hopelessly vague, requiring speakers to guess at what some fact-finder will decide is "irrelevant" or "no longer material to current public debate," or how a fact-finder will balance (in defiance of the First Amendment) the harm of the speech and its relevance. The exceptions are haphazard and poorly defined, and the role of the New York Secretary of State in administering the law is unclear. This would be a bonanza for anyone who wanted to harass reporters, bloggers, search engines, and web sites to take down negative information, and would incentivize such harassment and inflict massive legal costs on anyone who wanted to stand up to a vexatious litigant.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 2:44pm

    not Popehat

    "here's Ken White's (Popehat) take on the bill"

    Popehat is supposed to be a "group" blog with many different contributors, or at least that was how it used to be, though it seems that Ken White is now the last man standing.

    Anyway, that link is misnamed in more ways than one, as it does not even lead to the Ken White blog.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2017 @ 6:42pm

      Re: not Popehat

      It's the same as saying Tim Cushing(Techdirt). The link leads to an article with an emailed statement by Ken White which is reproduced above.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 8:21pm

      Re: not Popehat

      There are still several bloggers contributing to Popehat.
      I believe part of the slowdown is how busy some of them are.
      Adam Steinbaugh (my boo) works for FIRE so that takes priority over contributing.
      Marc Randazza is busy translating more expletives into latin to slip into filings. (OHAI Marc)
      Via Angus is a bull on the run, so spotty net connection.

      They are lawyers, and while we might want to read their takes on everything... they have people to represent to pay the bills.

      There are several writers for TechDirt, and some of them we only see every 3rd new moon. People have lives & jobs and while TD is important to them, I doubt the secret checks from Google are making them rich.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 Mar 2017 @ 11:37pm

    If Shiva Ayyadurai manages to unseat Elizabeth Warren in 2018, do you think he will push for a bill like this?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2017 @ 8:29am

      Re:

      Figures that nut would join in with a bunch of other nuts.

      With the approval ratings that Warren has, I doubt he stands a chance. Many are simply in it for the money.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2017 @ 1:16am

    I guess they will just forget about it for now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 27 Mar 2017 @ 5:31am

    Marc Randazza

    I am frequently confused by that guy. While he usually fights the good fight he also makes some weird arguments. Case in point ==> http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/14/opinion/randazza-google-right-to-privacy/

    Despite supporting the First Amendment he thinks we need a right to be forgotten. A right to be forgotten would certainly result in unwanted content being removed, conceivably denying someone else their First Amendment right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 28 Mar 2017 @ 7:36am

      Re: Marc Randazza

      Eh, he's trying to be reasonable and fair to people in a situation that renders them vulnerable, e.g. convicted felons whose convictions are spent and should therefore be removed from public records. However, if the felony ended up in the press it is searchable and could conceivably cause problems for the ex-felon decades after he or she has seen the error or his or her ways and turned over a new leaf.

      I get that it's good to be able to make a fresh start with a clean slate. However, this is problematic for newspapers, etc., which would find themselves employing staff purely for the purpose of fielding requests to delete old news items that are publicly available. It's a nice idea but implementation would be costly because there would be so many requests flooding in, mostly by people wanting to whitewash their publicly available histories.

      In this blog post: http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/how-to-resurrect-your-reputation-five.html

      I've outlined how to deal with situations where your reputation is shot and you want to move on. I've been yelled at for it but I say again: your reputation is primarily influenced by your personal conduct and attitude. If people lie about you it makes other people check you out. What will they find on your own social media accounts, etc.? Make sure it matches the image you want people to have of you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.