Bill Would Let Ex-Cons Conceal Their Past from the Internet

By: Charles Cooper
Topics: In The News ,; Tech Talk

State Senator Shirley Smith

(Credit: Shirley Smith State Senate page)

Six Ohio state senators have introduced a bill that would compel media organizations to erase stories from the Internet about former convicts whose case records are sealed by the courts.

The bill in question, Senate Bill 291, would also penalize organizations to the tune of $250,000 - with a maximum fine of up to $1 million - for failing to delete the information and then knowingly publishing it on their websites. Under Ohio law, only first-time non-violent offenders would be able to get the courts to expunge their records. The bill being pushed by the senators would also extend that privilege to people convicted of multiple offenses. In order to be eligible to seek court approval, a convict would need to maintain a clean record and the crime in question would need to be more than five years old.

According to the Columbus Dispatch, the bill "would require individuals and private businesses to erase the historical record by destroying "records" they hold about the convictions of those whose cases are sealed."

The relevant provision in the proposal reads: "Whoever violates division (C)(2) of this section by knowingly releasing or otherwise disseminating or making available information over the internet is guilty of releasing sealed records and shall be fined one million dollars."

Lead sponsor State Senator Shirley Smith has since has put out a statement quoting her as saying:

"The stigma of criminal records makes it difficult for reformed offenders to fully integrate back into society. I believe that expanding the opportunity to seal certain offenses will help ex-offenders find employment, allow them to support themselves and their families, and increase the economic productivity of the state."

(Ohio still suffers from high unemployment. Smith has also pushed to ban the box on a job application asking prospective employees whether they have ever been convicted of a felony. The idea, according to a recent piece in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, would be to give ex-cons an opportunity to make a good impression in an interview that might outweigh their criminal conviction.)

But critics have attacked the bill as posing a threat to freedom of speech. In Wheeling, W.V., for instance., the The Wheeling News-Register, wrote in an editorial that the bill simply was unworkable. "Here at the newspaper, for example, we have computerized records of criminal reports dating back more than five years. It would be very difficult to find and erase them all. Smith's bill clearly is unconstitutional. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, even when those guilty of old crimes would prefer their offenses be forgotten."

Smith has since clarified her remarks denying that she favors news censorship or seeks to delete stories from the Internet. She represents the 21st district in Cleveland and has been a state senator since 2007. Her bio also lists her as a consultant for the Coca-Cola Bottling Company.

Her office was not immediately available for comment.

Charles Cooper is an executive editor at CNET News. He has covered technology and business for more than 25 years, working at CBSNews.com, the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie.

2 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by longtree-2009 September 2, 2010 7:12 AM EDT: what guarantee does the public have that the offender has truly reformed? if the offender commits a crime again, then who will be held personally responsible? will it be smith, city, county, state, federal government, law enforcement, criminal justice, who? criminals keep getting more rights than those who have never been an offender all of their life. if you hire someone, who embezzled, would you trust that person around your business revenue? if an offender was a sex offender, would you hire the person in daycare, or anywhere around children? if an offender was a murderer, would you hire the person around weapons used when murder was committed? auto thief at a car dealership, drug dealer among legal drugs? smith and et al are seriously flawed if the bill does not hold someone, some entity, completely responsible financially and criminally if the offender offends again. some people should not be elected to office, period.; Reply to this comment


by bingbong22 September 1, 2010 11:18 PM EDT: Looking at the author of the Bill, I would suspect some collusion with family members having problems. Would this fall under Favoritism or nepotism? just sayin'...kinda spitballin' that one.; Reply to this comment