There has to be another way to deal with this issue. It's rapidly spiraling out of control. People are discovering that all you need to smear someone is ten minutes of your time and a basic understanding of Google.

As a brilliant Harvard student suggested, why not take the issue to google? Why shouldn't people have more discretion over what comes up when their name is searched?

I feel terrible for this man, and I hope that his name doesn't come up again thanks to this article. (Yes, the one in which I'm currently posting.)

Shakespeare: is it a name, or an activity?

This sort of Shakespearean story really calls out for a response by Fraternity Lothario. Surely this sort of thing frequently must have happened to young gentlemen at his preparatory academy?

"The school administrators say sure, but the college newspaper editors are adamantly opposed. We love principled undergrads."

How is this principled? Is there some principle of journalistic integrity that says you shouldn't remove archived articles?

Always nice for an Alum of Seattle Univ. School of Law to get a shout-out on ATL.

TT til I die (or at least go BK trying to pay off my student loans while working at a mid-size firm)

10:58,

You should go away and not come back until you've read up on this new thing called "sarcasm."

"We explained to them, if they wanted to start down a path of removing historical archives and pulling it from the public sphere, what they're doing is censorship,"

What path? What path?! They're asking you to take down one article.

I am personally -- yes, personally -- disgusted by the way in which they framed this action.

We had to adress a similar issue at my college paper. An Alumni wrote us requesting that we remove a story from our online archive involving an arrest with a paintball gun. Clearly it was a much more minor offense. We quickly decided that removing the article was not justified, as the person didn't really dispute that they had done the things alleged. We decided to compromise, and added a no-robots command to the one story so that it would still be available in our archive, but google would not index it. Of course, had the conduct in the story been more serious, we wouldn't have even done that.

No journalistic principles are at stake. Essentially the student editors are passing judegement on someone who attended their university years before the editors even thought about going to SPU. I can understand if nobody wants to go through the archives of articles and screen them for potentially defamatory content, but in this case the individual is telling them the specific article.
Besides, who the hell actually reads archived SPU articles (unless they are searching someones name and find the article).

This guy I worked with was named Michael Bolton. He was constantly confused with the no-talent hack of a musician. He got mad and stole thousands from the company.

Samir Nagaworkhereanymore.

10: co-signed. But they're doing much more than passing judgment: they're complicit in ruining someone's career. When they get out into the real world and understand the practical effects of these principles, I hope they figure the error of their ways. And possibly get some comeuppance.

Typical "when in doubt blame everyone else" act. I agree that this sucks and should be taken down, but the guy should also use this as self reflection. 10 years ago he was quick to draw out the race card for no reason. Now his clients can read this and learn a bit more about the type of person they are working with.

- moral of the story: use better judgment because if you don't it might end up on the internet.

The Google hit is embarrassing, but it's true information.

Mr. Feyissa's complaint isn't that there's false or misleading information out there, but rather that there's true information that people are likely to make too much of or misinterpret.

If he's right, then the problem is with people's attitudes, not with the availability of information on Google. Maybe people's attitudes will change when a greater percentage of us have our mistakes accessible to the world.

The solution isn't to suppress the truth, though.

Guys at my high school used to attempt sexual assault all the time. It was no big deal.

"10 years ago he was quick to draw out the race card for no reason. Now his clients can read this and learn a bit more about the type of person they are working with."

10 years ago -> today

Yes, or learn about the type of person they MIGHT have been working with ten years ago. I cannot seriously believe that you are a lawyer with this argumentation and flawed logic. It's possible you live in no-time land.

It's a bunch of 20-year-olds overestimating their own importance who will feel like assholes ten years from now when they actually have responsibilities and perspective and reflect on what they did to this dude.

"reflect on what they did to this dude"

"What they did to this dude" = report what happened.

Gentlement from my preparatory academy frequently ossaged the press to remove livacious tales of them galvanting and penetrating--without consent--females in the hope of removing these tales from the realm of an internet search function. It was not a conspicuous occassion.

~ Fraternity Lothario

16, when they read about what he did 10 years ago they also read about it knowing it is TEN YEARS AGO. It is up to them to decide whether they believe he has changed or not. Some people were immature idiots 10 years ago, and remain so today.

I can seriously believe you are a lawyer with your argumentation style. You wanted to be heard, because a lawyer can not stand to not talk, and you went on attacking the argument very poorly and continued to attack the author.

well, there are 2 sides to it:
1. He was suspended for this. It's a basic fact.

2. it's a hypersensitive late 90s university action, where just whistling at a girl would have gotten you 10-to-20.

Again, because he was never charged, its extremely suspicious. Either the university covered it up to keep it out of the news OR the grounds were baseless and the university overreacted.

Undergrad journalists are in league with the feminazis on campuses, so its no wonder there not removing it (this has nothing to do with their journalistic integrity). I'm sure there's a womyn's studies major /editor patting herself on the back for not letting some "rapist male" take the offending article down, regardless of whether the assault was valid or not.

Maybe Dan Solove will have something to say about this...

I wish we could remove more of our comments on past news articles. Its a privacy issue, I wrote it, I retract it. Once I write something on the net, it doesn;t become private property of the newspaper or blog on which it was posted. It remains my intellectual property.

18: No, I was referring to their refusal to budge regarding a ten-year-old article they had nothing to do with.

The students are claiming that this is a first amendment issue, I don't see that, this is a private university. Furthermore, the falcon seems to only be tacitly related to the university itself. I wonder if the newspaper is being brought into this litigation, or if only the university is being brought to court?

http://www.thefalcononline.com/

21: your analysis is on the money. Look at their opinions page.

As so often seems to be the case in our society, this could all be resolved by a simple duel...

Mr. Feyissa doth protest too much. His story is already splattered all over the internet, and he simply draws more attention to himself - or is that a new way of self-promotion?

What is his next target - removal of the reported decision on Findlaw on the appeal of the for summary judgment decision on his action for breach on contract suit agaunst the colleged at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_app/560794MAJ&invol=4, or for removal of the the other pblished legal reporters?

Also a query - what was his immigration status at the tome of the arrest, as he is reported to be from Ethiopia? If not a citizen, this would have gotten him deported - so it is curious as to why the charges were dropped. Its ironoic that immigrants come to this country seeking our basic fredeoms, including freedom of expressiona nd freedom of the press, but then protest when the exercxise fo that freedom runs contrary to their personal interets. (Don't flame me for anti-immigrant bias; I am also an immigrant.)

"What is his next target"

Who says he has one, Mr. Slippery Slope? The case you cited and this news article are not comparable.

"If not a citizen, this would have gotten him deported"

I didn't realize I was in the presence of a brilliant immigration attorney who could barely understand the difference between an arrest and a conviction. Bravo.

5- The principle is simple: the article was true when written and remains so today. Removing it from the newspaper's archives would erase part of the public record, and journalists typically go totally ape shit about such attemtps (and rightly so in my view).

Also, this is not a new problem, because, in a time before Google, if someone really cared enough about Mr. Feyissa's history they could have discovered the same information by searching the paper's hard copy (or microfilm) archives. Of course, that task is substantially more difficult than performing a Google search. However, I highly doubt that any newspaper in the pre-Internet age would have considered purging its archives to erase an entirely accurate story just because it was later adversely affecting someone's life, and I don't think this inflexibility should change just because the information is easier to access.

Maybe the newspaper could print an ombusman's piece about the issue defending its position and noting that the charges were dropped against Mr. Feyissa subsequent to the time when the article was published. That's about as far as they could go, and frankly, I see no reason why they need to do that, except out of fidelity to an alum.

4 and 11 = 180

19, Frat Loth -

You sure do talk purty, but "ossaged"? "livacious"? I can't find them words in that big ol' word book thingie yonder.

30: that's just it. He's not asking to remove it completely. He's asking to remove it from google cache. BIG difference. And that's what he's correct.

Am I the only one intrigued by K. Hill's willingness to tie her own name to a porn screen name? I think we need further investigation into this . . . admission?

Removing an article from a newspaper's archives is a classic example of censorship, right up with airbrushing people out of photos. Would anyone expect the New York Times to remove an article on Feyissa? Of course not, and it should be the same for a college newspaper.

34,

I think this is a question that can only be properly answered in the form of a video documentary.

I happen to have a Hi-8 cameraman on standby for just such an occasion...

32 - livacious should be lascivious. But guys at my high school used to misspell big words all the time and it was no big deal, so...

Co-sign 21

Wikipedia:

harm limitation deals with the questions of whether everything learned should be reported, and if so, how. This principle of limitation means that some weight needs to be given to the negative consequences of full disclosure, creating a practical and ethical dilemma. The Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics offers the following advice, which is representative of the practical ideals of most professional journalists. Quoting directly:[4]

* Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

This article just makes me sick. I really feel for the guy. Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to go out on a date with a girl and have her google you later and realize you went to SeaTTTle Pacific University?

33: 30 here. I just read the Seattle Times article. You're mistaken. He wants the article removed from the archives.

This is a classic conflict between the wise and the unwise. Both groups - the administrators and the student editors - are educated and well-versed in free speech issues and the like. The only difference is that the administrators are wiser and have lived in the real world for 20-30 more years than the editors. The administrators are viewing this practically, and the students are still stuck in their phase of pretending everything is about principles, ethics and the "larger issue".

These students will eventually learn that even in the lofty intellectual world of the Supreme Court, practicality wins (state interest vs. civil liberties balancing test, for example). Unfortunately, the editor-in-chief of the paper will always be someone who just doesn't get it yet.

It isn't censorship if the newspaper does it voluntarily, which they should. Its just helping a guy out at the expense of.....what again? "Journalistic integrity"? Please.

Shakespear is a terrible porn name

The solution No. 9 (Mr. Spitzer???) previously used would seem to be appropriate here. The necessity of the historical truth would seem to be outweighed by the harm caused by the obvious prejudice shown by society over an arrest (but not conviction). Telling Mr. Shakespear to "take it up with society" doesn't fix his problem, nor does it reflect well on the paper.

If Mr. Shakespear could always go on the offensive. For example, he could launch a website that details the actions of the paper's staff so that they are assured to suffer similar prejudice when looking for a job. I wonder how they will feel when the shoe is on the other foot.

42: very strong reading of this case. If they were wise, they would also use this opportunity to treat it as a "favor." In the real world, you want people who can pull a few strings for you. What if these editors decide to pursue a legal career? What if they stay local? This is exactly the type of networking they should be doing.

Ethics and larger issues apply solely where the larger issue needs to be addressed. Here, journalistic ethics are too murky and irrelevant. You help a guy out, you removed an article, and everyone sleeps easily.

Self-censorship of newspaper archives simply because the subject of the story finds it embarassing is absurd. What next, deleting DUI stories if no subsequent arrest?

Time to call the privacy police over at concurring opinions. Pasquale and Solove will talk about this for weeks, without actually saying anything.

I find it interesting that the newspaper is standing on its journalistic integrity in telling the university to take a hike, but then turns right around and asks the university for $3,000 for a new server on which to house the very article at issue. The university, to its credit, basically made the funds contingent on having access to the server. Naturally, the paper doesn't want to agree.

Ask any editor-in-chief of a real newspaper, and s/he will tell you that at the end of the day, journalistic ethics ALWAYS take a back seat to money. Journalists may not like it, but money is what keeps the presses running.

49 and the like- You think the student editors are naive and "un"wise. Fine.

Do you have a principled basis for removing the article other than the quietly ending the complaints being raised by an attorney who clearly has too much time on his hands?

47 - yes.

If someone said that our guy was a sexual predator without proof, it would be defamation. Writing a published article about someone being arrested for sexual assault, but ultimately released has an even greater effect on the person - presumption of guilt and all.

And this guy doesn't have what Kobe has going for him, to help him recover.

Maybe it was true, maybe not.

I'm interested in the part where he says a juror asked him about it in the courtroom. How did that go? "Excuse me, I know you're about to make your closing argument, but can you just tell me--- real quick--- if you're the same Shakespear Feyissa who was suspected of sexual assault ten years ago at TTT University?"

The lesson to be learned here is don't name your kid Shakespear Feyissa. My sons, Joe and John Smith, will never have this problem.

50 - It is irrelevant whether there is a principled basis for removing the article. It is all about negotiation. News outlets compromise on their principles (they bend) because it is in the best interests of such outlets to do so. In most cases, it comes down to not pissing off advertisers by running inflammatory stories. In this case, the paper wants $3,000 from the university, and the university has attached strings to such money. If the paper wants the server, you can bet it will compromise on pulling the article.

It's actually even worse than this. According to the Seattle Times article, "[Don] Mortenson, [vice president of business and planning] said every time Feyissa calls SPU's attorney about the Falcon, the school gets the bill. "I'd love to have the students pay for it next time," he said.

Rather than asking a newspaper to delete a truthful but embarrassing story, this fellow should just have changed his name.

So the guy is pissed that he can't get laid because of the article?

I know someone who has a similar story (undesirable Google hit when his name is searched), except the story was false. It was published in a highly reputable newspaper, but it was still false. He is self-employed, and it lost him some clients. And there is nothing he can do to clear his name with the Internet, even though his name was cleared, 100%, everywhere else.

This phenomenon has a well known nickname: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

What this guy should do is just keep calling the school. The school already (unintelligently) admitted that they have to pay a lawyer every time he calls. Well keep calling man! Get that legal bill so high that the school offers the paper enough money to compromise on their "principles", which I'm sure can be bought for the price of one extra newspaper staff happy hour.

I went to law school with Shakespear, and I consider him a friend. I talked to Shakes after the reading the article to tell him what a bad idea it was to take part in another article about the story he was trying to suppress. He told me that the article was not his idea and it was written by an intern of the Seattle Times. This is a really sad situation because Shakes is a decent and caring man who wouldn't harm a fly. I can only hope that some day he'll be able to recover from the harm that this situation has needlessly caused his personal and professional reputation.