However, talking about facts that have occurred is ALWAYS my legal right. This has nothing to do with the crime the person committed, or the time served, or any other punishment. I am allowed to talk about events, and the legal process is entirely separate.
In fact, a simple example will make this clear. Imagine that 10 years ago, Joe did two things on a random monday - he beat up a guy, and he also stood someone up on a date.
By your reasoning, if Joe served time and was released, we would no longer be able to talk about his crime. We couldn't tell people, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he beat up Steve really bad. Served 3 years for it. Be careful around him."
What about the person he stood up on a date? Is she allowed to say, "Hey, that is Joe - ten years ago, he stood me up on a date. You should not go on a date with him" Is this also not allowed? Are we not allowed to talk about negative things people did more than X number of years ago? Or does it only apply to times you broke the law and were convicted, and served your time?
That seems REALLY strange. We are allowed to talk about things for as long as we want. As long as we aren't committing libel or slander, we have free speech to tell people how we feel about other people, and we are allowed to use examples going back as far as we want.
That is what freedom of speech is all about.
It's only your legal right because the social contract says that it is. You can imagine a social contract that says once someone has been to prison for a crime, it is in fact against the law to refer to that crime ever having occurred. This is not advocating that reality, just suggesting it's a possible to conceive of a justice system with that set of values.
The idea of the law saying we have to deny facts that are unpleasant to some people sounds like a distopia to me.
I mean, yes, we can imagine that reality. Many countries do this, and punish people for talking about events that occurred but were embarrassing for the country or specific people. They are not healthy societies.
I doubt it - if you were never convicted, you can probably sue the ones retelling the story for defamation.
> Or are we forced to not talk about ANYTHING bad that happened more than x number of years ago?
The whole 'right to be forgotten' thing is not even about forcing people not to talk about something. It's mostly about not having a mistake pop up as the first hit on google for the rest of someones life. You can talk about whatever you like, but you may not be allowed to publish whatever you want, if it would take away another persons chance at starting over.
> Wouldn't that create a strange world where we create this illusion that everything was perfect x+1 years ago?
No, and I have no idea why you would have that idea. Before internet search engines were a thing, few people would have the know-how, time, and motivation to look other people up in news archives. Did people believe that the past was perfect back then? Of course not! So why would that happen now?
> The idea of the law saying we have to deny facts that are unpleasant to some people sounds like a distopia to me.
But that's not what it is about! It's about not constantly bringing up old facts that have little relevance to the present so that people can improve their lives instead of getting in a downward spiral because of something bad in the past.
Suppose a long time ago you once farted very loudly (by accident!) in a very inappropriate setting, such as during a funeral, when everyone was silent. Someone catches that moment on video. They upload it online. They tag it 'cortesoft? more like corteloud! #fart', and somehow it ends up being one of the top hits when people google your name. At some point in the future you apply for a job, and another candidate is chosen because the company don't want to risk their new employee farting loudly during business meetings. So your career has taken a dent, to balance your budget you have to eat beans most days of the week...
Hey, it could happen. That funeral-fart is a fact, and therefor it must be published, in eternity! No matter that it was a one time thing, that you have been avoiding vegetables linked to flatulence for the past 15 years, and that you feel very sorry about it. To remove it from the internet is to create a dystopia. Any law that would permit people to take down such videos about them would lead to a strange world where the illusion is created that people didn't fart x+1 years ago.
Okay, perhaps the example is just slightly ridiculous. But the point is that just because something is technically a fact, doesn't mean that it's necessary worth repeating forever.
Why not? In public places people are generally free to go where they want, but stalking is still illegal (in most jurisdictions that I am aware of). Has outlawing stalking led to even worse problems? I don't believe it has. I don't believe giving people who are not public figures the right to not have their names associated with certain search results concerning things many years in the past is going to lead to "even worse problems" (which?).
Note that a 'right to be forgotten'-like judgment was made in the USA in 1931 in Melvin v. Reid, and I don't think it has led to "even worse problems". Perhaps you could be more specific about the problems you foresee?
It might be easier in the end to prohibit hiring discrimination based on criminal history same as its forbidden for other personal traits.
This is a cultural shift, and it needs to be fought in the court of public opinion, not actual courts.
How long you should be angry for and how long you can talk about it is between the person and their therapist, not the courts.