Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming... by tannhauser23 on Friday April 06, 2018 @05:48PM (#16777769)

This is not a universally adopted solution, and for good reason. Publishing the suspect's name/face as well as the details of the alleged crime encourages witnesses to come forward. Plus, from a free speech perspective, it seems crazy to criminalize the publishing of true information, especially when it directly relates to public safety and the government's exercise of its police powers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming... by mjevans on Friday April 06, 2018 @06:47PM (#16778157)

Saying investigators are interested in the details surrounding individuals at the time of a crime (and presenting those individuals, not even as suspects, but merely as 'persons for which additional information is desired') is a truthful and accurate statement and does not assert any actual accusation of guilt. As such a fact it should be part of the public record regarding such a matter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming... by petre on Saturday April 07, 2018 @02:30AM (#16779652)

Society will treat you as a convicted criminal even if you're a suspect.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming... by losteric on Friday April 06, 2018 @07:04PM (#16778255)

Publishing names and faces as established criminals is inherently contradictory with an impartial jury of your peers.

Faces, I can see that but journalists must be very explicit... "This is the suspect who allegedly did xyz".

[ Parent | on HN ]