You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Just had a call from our sales team, the editor is on holiday and a male has phoned the office asking for a story on our website that mentions in passing a convicted child rapist who lives in our area to be taken down. Not for the sake of the offender but for his wife and children.
Personally I feel anyone who gets a 16 years sentence deserves what happens to them but I wonder about the rights of his family.
I don't know if they have stuck together but it appears his young family are starting to receive unwanted comment.
Luckily this decision is above my paygrade.
Where do you draw the line?
Murder? Assault? Speeding? Careless use of the apostrophe?
I'd leave it up. The facts are the facts.
There might be other victims out there who have no idea that he's been convicted but might one day Google him and come forward as a result.
I draw the line at ebikes, but I hold similar views to you about censorship.
With EU law on "the right to be forgotten" I believe he can ask Google to remove search results, so noone will find that page on your website when they search for him.
Whether this is a good thing or not is a very difficult question.
I’d leave it up. The facts are the facts.
Not so simple with the Right to be forgotten if the offence is spent.
I am also happy its not something I would need to make the decision on.
There are pros and cons to both positions.
Not so simple with the Right to be forgotten if the offence is spent.
Fair point.
Not so simple with the Right to be forgotten if the offence is spent.
A 16 year prison sentence is never spent.
Oh yeah. Rape is a lifer isn’t it.
EDIT! Sales person got it wrong the offence was 6 years sentence and was “just” sex offences not rape. That’s why they don’t get to put stuff online. Still an offence against children but he has done his time.
Might be better reporting the harassment of the family to the police?
A 6 year prison sentence is also never spent*
*Any custodial sentence over 48 months according to my google-fu
Right to be forgotten is not absolute.
AIUI the newspaper (if it is that) can cite other lawful bases for leaving the story up. Legitimate interest springs to mind; both their own (as a record of local news events) and of their readers (who may wish to steer clear of the perp).
It may be worth a discussion with the family, depending on what normal policy is - could be that you could minimise reference to them where possible.
No mention made of the family or reporting on the original case. It was mentioned on a previous version of the website that was closed when the title changed hands.
This time the perp was only mentioned in passing whilst mentioning awards going to cops that had handled the case.
a male has phoned
For the sake of the wife and kids eh? Seems legit.
The correct journalese to use in the response is 'tough shit'. It isn't spent, and there's a good reason why people who commit offences of that severity don't get the right to be forgotten.