>> This law is really terrible
Why?
Why?
Not letting others know things that are true that reflect poorly on you is though is a different story.
Take for instance the since-freed murderers who have used the law to hide their past actions. I don’t think that is something you should have the right to ask the world to forget.
Basically, I have no problem with only law-enforcement having a record of the past mistakes of reformed people, assuming that 1) law enforcement is actually "serving and protecting" and 2) the justice systems ensures a high fraction of cons are actually reformed.
This is a fundamental philosophical difference between the US and much of Europe. I'm not sure precisely from where it arises (though I suspect it stems from a combination of the US government tracing its historical roots to Enlightenment-era thinking on personal liberty and the English government having a law against sedition; the American colonies organizing a rebellion in spite of that law).
If they should be in prison then the countries don't differ.
If they shouldn't be in prison then they probably won't make a worse babysitter. It was a very extreme circumstance that they regret.
There's nothing that makes murder specifically relevant to babysitting. If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job. So they'd be unhireable. Which in practice is more or less the same as "they should still be in prison".
Should this person not be allowed to work with children?
> If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job.
Unhirable for one, high trust job doesn't mean unhirable for every job. For example, I don't care if a sex offender washes my dishes at a restaurant, but I wouldn't want them teaching my preschoolers.
For a sex offender, it depends on what kind. For example, a former prostitute is no less qualified than anyone else. But sure, some kinds are relevant, and should disqualify people from a narrow slice of jobs.
The problem is when people have supposedly served their time but can't get 95% of jobs.
Prison does not rehabilitate the vast majority of criminals. That's not it's purpose.
Also murder has a super low recidivism rate.
Ah, the old "I'm not a Christian and think it's stupid and backwards, so this argument won't work on me, but maybe this argument will work on you and you'll do what I want" approach.
Good luck with that.
Essentially, it's like your privacy rights were violated in a novel, so instead of going after the publisher to cease and desist, you sue every single library (and technically every non-organizational owner of said novel) to burn their copy.
In addition to that, the responsibility to decide what should be taken down/delisted is also moved from the publisher/courts of law to the indexer, so there is no due process.