New York Assemblyman Unveils Bill To Suppress Non-Government-Approved Free Speech

Tyler Durden's picture

In a bill aimed at securing a "right to be forgotten," introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others...

  • Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,”
  • “all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
  • “and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”
  • “ ‘[I]naccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”
  • “which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication,”
  • “is no longer material to current public debate or discourse,”
  • “especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest,”
  • “with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”

Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

As The Washington Post's Eugene Volokh rages, under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was “no longer material to current public debate or discourse” (except when it was “related to convicted felonies” or “legal matters relating to violence” in which the subject played a “central and substantial” role).

And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was “no longer material to current public debate.” Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others.

But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).

Remember: There is no “right to be forgotten” in the abstract; no law can ensure that, and no law can be limited to that. Instead, the “right” this aims to protect is the power to suppress speech — the power to force people (on pain of financial ruin) to stop talking about other people, when some government body decides that they should stop.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TePikoElPozo's picture

is it inacurate to say that Trump made all that money because his wife was working as an expensive whore ?

Swamp Yankee's picture

What could *POSSIBLY* go wrong?!

silverer's picture

What money and who is pushing this bought and paid for asshole?

FreeEarCandy's picture

Can't take away the freedom to ignore them and/or resist.  Come next election vote for the most deplorable and uneducated individual you can find. The way I see it, at this point we will be ahead of the game doing so. No more polished politicians with wax hair and shinny teeth. If the fucker isn't missing his front teeth and has hair down to his ass, then he is no good for America. There is likely no other way to separate the wheat from the shaft these days.

DuneCreature's picture

Here is an interesting idea.

Crowd fund a decent academic.

Economics 1001 =

It might be the only way to call a spade a spade and get paid.

Live Hard, It Is Pretty Sad When You Can't Even Pay Good Money To Hear The Real Truth, Die Free

~ DC v5.0

Liberty2012's picture

"National creation of money by the government creating a deficit "

No thank you

No "spending money into existence"!

That's the same thing we have now.

Money is work traded for work. It is people sharing time through trade.

People choose. Not entities.

SmedleyButlersGhost's picture

As I prepare to go all out on the holiest of days, if your galtaway doesn't celebrate this, you need to reevaluate.  Respect but the day is about a culture. Slainte 

whatisthat's picture

What a bogus legislation by a complete moron politician.

New_Meat's picture

... but you repeat yourself.

truthalwayswinsout's picture

For even suggestting or putting forth such a bill it should be the death penalty.

quax's picture

Guys, you really get used to it quickly. I for instance submit everything I want to post here to the online Soro's Deep State approval form. It works almost in real time deeploying awesome NAS developed AI to check that my comment is 100% ideologically aligned.

Then I just copy and paste it here. Boom. Super easy. 

(I just wished it also spell checked my comments, well maybe in 2.0).

BingoBoggins's picture

It's PC to just plagarize.

quax's picture

Soro's Deep State approval form(TM) is mine and mine alone! 

Umh's picture

Somebody tell me why Eugene Volokh teamed up with the Washington Post.

Chet Ricco's picture


Lost in translation's picture

Observe how, before attacking the rest of the BoR, they went after the 2A, first:

Atomizer's picture

Good luck. Laughing stock of a blotting government. Check how many legal armed citizens you have to answer to. Just a question.  

One Eyed Jack's picture

I've unveiled a plan to suppress the breathing of tyrants.

MuffDiver69's picture

Don't laugh.The two judges ruling against Trump used campaign speeches of a private citizen to prove intent of a clearly legal EO...

Conax's picture

From New York, Hillary's address while senator, where her idiotic 'friends' are still in office:

They said mean things about Hillary on the nets. She's all sick and gone home and the things they said are still there. It hurts to see such hateful stories after the election is over and everything. The political cartoons are the worst. No respect for lying sold out hags at all. Our first negro presidunt was treated even worse, now he's beside himself with sadness.  We must find a way to clean up the hate all over the nets because we can't stand remembering how fucked up we truly are.

Anybody makes us mad, is going to pay, buddy and go to jail, even.

So there.


moorewasthebestbond's picture

15 minutes of fame for a couple of nobodies.


This is a non-story.


Given the clickbait title, I though for sure this article was going to be another SHTFplan nothingburger.

Umh's picture

Unless you have one foot in the grave you will most likely live to see something like this enacted.

moorewasthebestbond's picture

Maybe so, but what is one more unenforceable law among thousands of unenforceable laws going to matter?


Getting enacted is one thing. Enforcing it and passing legal challenges is another.


Stormtrooper's picture

The First Amendment was written to prevent the Federal government from infringing on the free speech of Americans.  None of the Bill of Rights were written to apply to the sovereign states, only their agent in Washington, D.C.  It is up to you as a citizen to defend your rights within the state where you live.  Either become politically active to prevent/change this type of government over reach or know where your legislators live so that you can extract justice over their injustices with "extreme prejudice" (or move to another state that is more friendly of citizen rights).

Abaco's picture

True, but if those fucks on SCOTUS want to claim that somewhere there is a provision preventing restriction of abortion they can sure as hell apply the 1st to the states.

Lucky Leprachaun's picture
Assemblyman (((David I. Weprin)))) --> 'comes from a Jewish family of Democratic politicians...' (wiki)

Quelle surprise?

Their big fear is that the Holocau$t™ racket will get exposed. That's what all of this is about.

trutherator's picture

This on the same day news gets out that Google is instituting a policy to down-score "offensive" web pages in its search listings. Google has de facto dominance in the search space and is implementing this in favor of Deep State arm of the World Dictatorship architects. 

This is just the beginning, obviously. They're moving just bit by bit. 

Me, I'm going to be changing my browsers' default search setting to use Bing. 

Back just after Obama released his "long form birth certificate", a search for the web page at Pamela Gellar's site that had a document expert's explanation as to why it was bogus, interrupted the load with the warning that Yahoo "does not approve" this web site. Some idle curious or timid web surfer would have been scared off maybe, but I clicked to go ahead "at my own risk" it said. 

Almost never have used Yahoo since.

I use and sometime Bing. Not as many results but who looks past 10 or 20 anyway. Plus Google often posts sites that are missing one or two of the keyword list. 





quesnay's picture

Use duckduckgo, it doesn't track you and it uses yandex underneath, which is a search engine based in Russia and not subject to these ridiculous "right to be forgotten" laws and other crap.

Startpage uses Google underneath.

lakecity55's picture

Yah, Bloogle has been blocking Breitbart off and on as an "attack page." Fuck Google!

T830's picture

This is the exact script of Animal Farm. 

lakecity55's picture

Sooo, the state legislator is no doubt a Piggie!


metanoic's picture

"This precisely mirrors what the Romans were proclaiming as their empire crumbled around them. You can't rebuild a moral center with more regulations and legislation, or by trying to silence critics. Proliferating regulations and attempts to silence critics are simply proof that the disintegration is accelerating down the slide to disorder and collapse." - Charles Hugh Smith

ps - Fuck NY

GooseShtepping Moron's picture

How can the New York State Assembly make law affecting the entire internet? Is it the case that anyone residing in the district would have the power to initiate one of these requests to be forgotten, and then the publisher of the content would be forced to take it down even if he did not reside in the district? Or is it the case that only publishers residing within the district would fall under the law, and only they could be compelled to remove content?

In other words, what is the scope of this law? I don't see how it could apply to people who have no political representation in New York.

BingoBoggins's picture

How? The same way a city in North Carolina created rules for bathrooms in every Target store in the world.

All those rainbow flags on FaceBook didn't hurt either.

Hapa's picture

Who are these people who actually think that criminalizing speech is a good thing?  I guess their gatekeeping job of protecting the establishment is so parmount, they give no thought to the consequences. 

bardot63's picture

"remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements..."    this would put the lib demtard autobot drones out of business.

ToSoft4Truth's picture

What a great idea.  We'll all consume happy thoughts. 

JLee2027's picture

Send this commie to Siberia

thecondor's picture

Would this apply to them with all this dog whistling about assassinating trump? 

SmedleyButlersGhost's picture

I smell Dutchboy2015 a/k/a whopper goldberg behind this proposal

jomama's picture

I know you guys are real sharp and all that, but he's running this bill out there to demonstrate what a fascist country we've become - to make a point.

Not to get it passed. Now head back over to Brietbart and brush up on your homework.

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) jomama Mar 16, 2017 6:48 PM

Why do you even bother?

Minack's picture

So he's proposing a bill that leftists would love to use or he's grandstanding and wasting everyone's time. Piss off, CNN shill.

nevertheless's picture

NOT Leftists, Marxist, Zionist and maybe fascist, but certainly NOT liberal. FYI, Clinton is not liberal. 


Why, when we know for a fact that the media lies, do you nevertheless continue to follow their narrative?


So called liberals make up half the country, you enjoy being divided? It is far better to call them what they truly are, so you are not making their job of destroying America easier. 

Minack's picture

Why are you fighting a battle no one cares about? You're wasting time on labels while they ram their agenda through. Marxists, neo-liberals, neocons -- these people are all of the left and are at war with western civilization.

America has already been destroyed and the shriveled husk that remains is embroiled in a cold (soon to be hot) civil war. Worrying about labels at this point is simply autistic sperging. The only two labels that matter now are ally and enemy.

Forever Seeking's picture

"If Fascism ever comes to America, it will come under Liberalism."



atthelake's picture

Many Americans do not have $250 a day. That makes them judgement proof. What happens then? Do they get a free ride if they're poor?

GoldHermit's picture

This bill is DOA.  Don't give it a second thought!

BingoBoggins's picture

I entered the New York Senate mailing system any way and told him to stick that bill where the sun don't shine.

I'm from Minnesota.

nevertheless's picture

Good JOB, it is when they think we are not looking is when they get the most bold. 

Then one day we wake up and another ight is gone. 

Of course they often do this in the aftermath of one of their false flag events.