The "I Don't Think I Could Be A Judge!" Story

It was an ordinary day.  Talking with my brother Steve about an event that happened about three years ago near the property where he used to live in East Cocalico Township in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.  About 10 years ago Steve's son Matt had taken over his mom and dad's home, which was next to a large farm with quite a bit of woodland.  Then, in February of 2016 the news broke of a group of seven friends who were shooting a rifle at a stump about a quarter mile away from Matt's home.  Seems that somehow a bullet from the rifle traveled through that quarter mile, the wooded area, and pierced a kitchen window of a home near Matt's place.  The accidental shot lodged in the neck of a young girl sitting at her kitchen table.  The bullet remains in her neck today due to the chance of further damage if it would be removed.  She incurred major hospital expenses and is limited in what physical activities she can do today.  It was not determined who fired the shot, since all were shooting the gun.  So, all were charged with reckless endangerment, as well they should have been.  But, that's not the end of the story.  Seems that one of the shooters, a young girl who is 23 at present, has a big problem.  After she was charged, a county judge placed her in a first-time offender program that diverted her from a trial or guilty plea.  In about 10 years her court and police records will be automatically sealed under Pennsylvania's new Clean Slate law which gives low level offenders a second chance, provided they don't break the law again.  She will no longer be part of the criminal justice system.  Now, I know this doesn't sound like a big problem...but, wait.  If you happen to "Google" her name in 10 years you will find it, along with her criminal record.  How can that be since she will no longer have any record of the shooting event?  Seems that search engines on the Internet are not required to wipe all the links to the girl from their site.  Should the news media sites honor the spirit of the Clean Slate law and delete those posts about criminal activity from their site?  The authors of the Clean Slate law realize that they don't have a say about sealing court and police records in the media.  This young girl claims that her chance to get a good job might be diminished if a future employer "Googles" her name and sees that she might have shot someone and had a criminal record.  

The news media association argued that any effort to limit access to criminal records likely will fail because many records live on in private data archives.  A local newspaper managing editor said the newspaper would violate its role of bearing witness to community events if it deleted crime-related articles.  He went on to say that while they understand the interest some have in erasing their criminal records, but the newspaper cannot, and should not, erase history.  They do not approve of censorship when it comes to news.  The newspaper publisher said that perhaps technology companies would be regulated, but not the media.  Would you want to know if someone you were hiring had a criminal record?  Would you want to hire someone convicted of rape or maybe child or sexual abuse?  If a judge thought you should have your record sealed in certain amount of time, should that be taken off the Internet as well as from legal files?  In Spain five years ago a young man was going to have his home repossessed.  That fact, even thought it is not relevant today, had a negative impact on his landing a good job, since employers might think he is not a responsible person.  The courts ruled in his favor and "Google Spain" had to remove the material.  In 2015 in New Zealand the Harmful Digital Communications Act passed and harmful content had to be removed.  New York, Hawaii and Massachusetts are all working on bills to do the same, but have not passed them yet.  I'm not sure how I feel.  If a Judge felt it was safe to exhume your record, why shouldn't it be taken offline as well!  But, doesn't the First Amendment of our Constitution read:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  How are the states going to get around that?  And...should they?  I don't think I could be a Judge trying to make that decision!  It was another extraordinary day in the life of an ordinary guy.