The reputation-management industry and the prospects for a “right to be forgotten” in the US

Q2 Social Sciences First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2017-01-02 DOI:10.1080/21689725.2017.1308262
Ben Medeiros
{"title":"The reputation-management industry and the prospects for a “right to be forgotten” in the US","authors":"Ben Medeiros","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2017.1308262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Online speech platforms present novel risks to privacy and reputation. There are situations in which unique kinds of harm can indeed occur but where the law applies imperfectly. Yet legal expansions like the European “Right to Be Forgotten” would contradict several well-established tenets of American free speech law. This paper argues that the reputation-management industry (RMI) represents one set of solutions in the absence of an American Right to Be Forgotten. The RMI counsels assiduous self-monitoring, search engine optimized promotion of one’s own preferred content, and negotiation for voluntary removal by content hosts. This approach arguably helps to address the informational distortions than can be created by true accounts of unseemly conduct and mob-like expressions of vitriolic opinion online. It likewise helps to mitigate the concern that readers will form inaccurate or unduly harsh judgments based on cursory examination of search results.The RMI thus in some ways addresses the underlying gaps between legal protection and perceived harm in a manner that accords better with the emphasis on “counterspeech” in the American free speech tradition. At the same time, the article concludes by addressing some limitations that are necessary to keep the industry from threatening free-speech principles itself.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"51 1","pages":"14 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2017.1308262","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Amendment Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2017.1308262","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract Online speech platforms present novel risks to privacy and reputation. There are situations in which unique kinds of harm can indeed occur but where the law applies imperfectly. Yet legal expansions like the European “Right to Be Forgotten” would contradict several well-established tenets of American free speech law. This paper argues that the reputation-management industry (RMI) represents one set of solutions in the absence of an American Right to Be Forgotten. The RMI counsels assiduous self-monitoring, search engine optimized promotion of one’s own preferred content, and negotiation for voluntary removal by content hosts. This approach arguably helps to address the informational distortions than can be created by true accounts of unseemly conduct and mob-like expressions of vitriolic opinion online. It likewise helps to mitigate the concern that readers will form inaccurate or unduly harsh judgments based on cursory examination of search results.The RMI thus in some ways addresses the underlying gaps between legal protection and perceived harm in a manner that accords better with the emphasis on “counterspeech” in the American free speech tradition. At the same time, the article concludes by addressing some limitations that are necessary to keep the industry from threatening free-speech principles itself.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
声誉管理行业与美国“被遗忘权”的前景
网络演讲平台给隐私和声誉带来了新的风险。在某些情况下,特殊类型的伤害确实可能发生,但法律的适用并不完美。然而,像欧洲的“被遗忘权”这样的法律扩张将与美国言论自由法的几个既定原则相矛盾。本文认为,声誉管理行业(RMI)代表了在缺乏美国人被遗忘权的情况下的一套解决方案。RMI建议勤奋的自我监控,搜索引擎优化推广自己喜欢的内容,并与内容主机协商自愿删除。可以说,这种方法有助于解决信息扭曲问题,而不是通过对不体面行为的真实描述和网络上暴民式的尖刻意见表达所造成的信息扭曲。同样,它也有助于减轻读者对基于粗略检查搜索结果而形成不准确或过于苛刻的判断的担忧。因此,RMI在某种程度上解决了法律保护与感知伤害之间的潜在差距,其方式更符合美国言论自由传统中对“反言论”的强调。与此同时,文章最后指出了一些必要的限制,以防止该行业威胁到言论自由原则本身。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
First Amendment Studies
First Amendment Studies Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: First Amendment Studies publishes original scholarship on all aspects of free speech and embraces the full range of critical, historical, empirical, and descriptive methodologies. First Amendment Studies welcomes scholarship addressing areas including but not limited to: • doctrinal analysis of international and national free speech law and legislation • rhetorical analysis of cases and judicial rhetoric • theoretical and cultural issues related to free speech • the role of free speech in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., organizations, popular culture, traditional and new media).
期刊最新文献
The digital citizen as technoliberal subject: The politics of constitutive rhetoric in the European Union’s Digital Decade The Supreme Court’s rhetorical construction of home On the censoring of Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb An accounting from Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb The rhetoric of democracy in United States Senate campaign debates
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1