In the past, when someone&#x27;s name has been cleared or expunged, publications have not been required to tear up old copies of back issues...because of course that would be a bit unfeasible...nor have they been required to publish a change in a person&#x27;s status...to use an extreme case, a newspaper that covered OJ Simpson&#x27;s arrest and arraignment would not necessarily have to cover the verdict of his criminal trial.<p>But things are of course different in the Internet age. Should a newspaper be required to retroactively delete or correct its archives? And under what conditions? It can be argued that it&#x27;s worth it, when maintaining a public record, to know what happened in the past, as long as it is clearly labeled as being in the past.<p>But either way, I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s a good law to say that once your record is expunged, you get to sue everyone who hasn&#x27;t updated their archives&#x2F;articles for libel. In the same way that (theoretically), site operators do not automatically get sued when copyrighted material appears on their site.