Barring that? I think erring on the side of the vastly more numerous set of decent people who may be affected by parrot farms is probably wise. (And I can't speak to Canadian jurisprudence, but it's often the case that courts make a broader decision in the American system and constrain it down over time.)
Okay but the hypothetical above doesn't include any court proceedings or any other government records. It's just a video of the person doing something illegal. It doesn't even have to be limited to videos/photos, it could also be verbal accusations (eg. of sexual harassment).
>Barring that? I think erring on the side of the vastly more numerous set of decent people who may be affected by parrot farms is probably wise.
I don't get it, are there websites out there dedicated to posting false information about random people?
Yes. And also prurient and invasive things that may be true (which is why we have laws against things like revenge porn, which Google also removes from its SERPs in some jurisdictions.
Does that mean if there's unflattering information about you on the internet (eg. disorderly conduct video), you can get that scrubbed by by posting some "demonstrably false information" about yourself (eg. that you're a child predator and war criminal), thereby causing your whole identity to be delisted?