Imagine searching your name and feeling calm – not bracing for what strangers might find. Imagine meeting new colleagues or reconnecting with old friends without worrying that a single link will define you. At National Security Law Firm, that’s the outcome we work toward every day: restoring peace of mind by persuading platforms and publishers to remove or deindex harmful content so your life isn’t dictated by old search results.

Imagine a Life Free from Online Anxiety

If you’re looking for practical ways to remove a news article, arrest record, mugshot, police blotter entry, or other criminal-related post from Google and the broader internet, you’re not alone. We’re asked about this constantly—especially by clients who have expungements or dismissals and are frustrated that outdated reporting still dominates their search results.

A common misconception is that removing negative articles is impossible because the reporting was accurate at the time. Many lawyers repeat that advice. In practice, removal or deindexing is possible. The work is nuanced, strategically diplomatic, and grounded in legal, ethical, and policy arguments that resonate with decision-makers.

This guide explains our approach and answers the questions we hear most, including:

  • The limits of expungement and why your court order doesn’t compel private publishers to remove content.

  • Why litigation rarely helps when the underlying reporting was accurate at the time.

  • How direct requests work and what editors actually weigh when considering unpublishing, anonymization, or deindexing.

  • Core strategies we use to achieve removal, anonymization, noindexing, and Google deindexing.

  • Removal vs. suppression: why permanent solutions are better than pay-forever tactics (and what to do if removal isn’t possible).

  • Our success-based model: transparent pricing and a refund if we don’t remove or deindex your content.

We help clients nationwide. Wherever you’re located, we can evaluate your matter and—if appropriate—take it on.

Will Expungement Remove the Content from the Internet?

One of the first questions we hear is whether a state expungement order compels news organizations, police blotter sites, or other private publishers to delete content. Short answer: no.

Expungement law varies by state. Where available, it generally orders government entities (courts, police, and similar agencies) not to disclose the expunged record. It does not require private publishers to rewrite or delete historical reporting. Forcing the press to unpublish accurate past reporting would run head-on into First Amendment protections.

That said, expungement or dismissal is still powerful evidence. While it doesn’t create a legal obligation to remove, it often strengthens our request by showing the matter no longer serves a public interest and that continued indexing disproportionately harms you. Editors and platform teams respond to context—and a clean legal outcome is compelling context.

Can I Sue for Defamation, Libel, or Slander?

Usually no, if the reporting was accurate when published. Defamation claims require falsity. If an article truthfully reported an arrest or charge on a given date, it typically isn’t defamatory simply because later developments make it feel unfair today. Even where there are minor inaccuracies, most outlets will correct or update rather than unpublish.

There are exceptions. If the content is false, materially misleading, or republished in a way that creates new falsity, litigation may be viable. But lawsuits are expensive, slow, and unpredictable—and for the vast majority of clients, persuasive removal advocacy is faster, quieter, and more effective.

Will Google Deindex or Remove the Article?

Google balances public access to information with individual privacy and safety. It prefers removal at the source. In limited circumstances, Google may deindex links (remove them from search results) where specific policies apply—such as certain privacy violations, non-consensual intimate imagery, sensitive personal data exposure, doxxing/harassment, or compliance with non-U.S. “right to be forgotten” regimes. Deindexing hides links from search, but the page remains on the publisher’s site.

Where a page doesn’t violate a Google policy, the most reliable solution is persuading the publisher to remove, anonymize, or noindex the page. We design our requests with that reality in mind.

Removing a News Article from Google and the Internet

If the article isn’t false and doesn’t violate a clear policy, the path is editorial discretion—a carefully constructed request to the right decision-maker asking for one of the following:

  • Unpublishing (removal)

  • Anonymization (removing your name)

  • Noindexing (adding a tag so search engines don’t index the page)

  • Corrections that reduce unfair impact or clarify disposition

Different outlets treat these options differently. Some have strict “no unpublishing” policies; others handle requests case by case. Success depends on presenting accurate documentation and credible arguments about newsworthiness, fairness, proportional harm, privacy, and the downstream effects on employment, safety, and family.

In our experience, you usually get one meaningful opportunity to make your case. Tone and structure matter. A diplomatic, well-sourced, and tightly reasoned request gives editors something they can say “yes” to.

What editors weigh most often:

  • Your reasons for the request and whether they’re supported by documents.

  • Final case disposition (dismissal, not guilty, expungement, or post-conviction reform).

  • How old the article is and whether it still carries public-interest weight.

  • Whether you were a minor.

  • Whether the article is incomplete, misleading, or inaccurate.

  • Whether anonymization or noindexing could address the harm without erasing the record.

Content Removal vs. Suppression

There are two very different approaches to repairing search results:

  • Removal pathways (our work): unpublishing, anonymization, noindexing, or qualifying Google deindexing.

  • Suppression (SEO): creating and promoting new content to bury the negative link.

Why we favor removal:

  1. Durability: When an article is removed or noindexed, it stops appearing in search for your name. There’s no ongoing maintenance fee to keep it buried.

  2. Clarity: Removal addresses the source of harm. Suppression leaves the page intact and accessible to anyone who looks hard enough.

  3. Cost discipline: Suppression campaigns can run into thousands per month, often indefinitely. Our model is a flat fee per source, success-based.

We do not perform suppression in-house. If, after exhausting removal and deindexing options, a matter truly cannot be changed at the source, you would need to retain a third-party SEO firm to handle suppression. Our starting point, every time, is to remove or deindex so you don’t have to pay forever to keep something hidden.

Why Choose an Attorney (and Not a “Reputation Specialist”) for Removal

When the goal is to change what’s online—not just bury it—you need someone who can:

  • Identify legal hooks (privacy, platform policies, copyright/DMCA, mugshot statutes).

  • Frame journalistic ethics arguments that editors respect (newsworthiness over time, fairness, proportionality, minors/mental health sensitivity).

  • Supply the right documents (dismissals, expungements, court records, letters of support).

  • Negotiate with the right person at the right level without burning bridges.

We routinely see non-lawyer services take approaches that make matters worse: aggressive threats, scattershot emails, or form-letter spam. Editors remember those. We take the opposite path—measured, factual, respectful—so the decision-maker has a reason to help.

What our legal review includes (examples):

  • Whether the content might qualify as harassment, cyberbullying, defamation, sextortion, or revenge porn.

  • Whether Google policy applies (e.g., doxxing/PII, images of minors, exploitative removal practices).

  • Whether a court order is appropriate (and practical) under the circumstances.

  • Whether DMCA can responsibly be used (copyrighted photo/text, license issues).

  • Whether journalistic ethics point toward anonymization or deindexing (minors, mental health, proportional harm).

  • Whether to assist in pursuing expungement/sealing or a pardon to strengthen the argument.

  • Whether contact should begin with an editor, counsel, publisher, or parent company executive.

  • Whether the author/photographer is reachable for a rights-based solution.

  • Whether mugshot statutes (varies by state) or platform Terms of Use offer leverage.

  • Whether we should propose an anonymization/noindex compromise where full removal is unlikely.

  • Whether to educate the publisher on how to implement noindex (many are open to solutions they control).

  • Whether any settlement is appropriate (rare, but sometimes the practical path).

Pricing and the Success-Based Model

Most firms charge hourly—even if removal efforts fail. We don’t. Our work is flat fee per source (typically $3,000) and success-based: if we don’t remove or deindex, you receive a full refund. There are no surprise bills and no incentive for us to over-work a dead end. Our incentives are aligned with yours from day one.

To make starting easier, we also offer flexible payment options through Pay Later by Affirm (subject to eligibility), so clients can begin with little money down and spread payments over time.

Why Threats Backfire

We’ve watched heavy-handed tactics close doors that would have opened with a calmer approach. Newsrooms, police blotter sites, and mugshot operators know their legal footing. Threats often entrench positions and can permanently reduce your options. We prefer to solve, not score points—and we leave form-letter saber-rattling to others.

Our Approach

  • Precision over volume: one carefully constructed request beats a dozen form letters.

  • Diplomacy first: editors and platform teams respond to respectful, well-documented arguments.

  • Persistence with purpose: follow-ups are steady, professional, and timed to the outlet’s internal review cycles.

  • All angles considered: we analyze legal, ethical, policy, and technical paths before choosing the best opening move.

  • Nationwide reach: we work with outlets and platforms across the country.

“Content Removal or No Fee” Guarantee*

Our standard is simple: success means your name no longer surfaces with the harmful link—whether by removal, deindexing from Google, or effective anonymization. If we don’t achieve that outcome within the agreed timeframe, you owe no fee and we refund what you paid.

What you can expect from us:

  • No-Fee Guarantee: you only pay if we remove or deindex.

  • Attorney Review Board: each week, our content removal attorneys confer on complex matters to surface arguments others miss.

  • Tailored plan: strategy and tone are built around your facts, the outlet’s policies, and your goals.

  • End-to-end management: drafting, documentation, outreach, follow-up, and confirmation.

  • Creative, persistent advocacy: ethical leverage where it helps, restraint where it matters.

  • Transparent pricing: flat fee per source; Affirm financing options if needed.

  • Nationwide service: we help clients across the U.S.

  • Client-centered communication: clear expectations, steady updates, realistic timelines.

*“Guaranteed” refers to our refund policy, not a promise of outcome. Every matter is fact-specific and governed by publisher discretion and applicable law. Full terms are provided in our engagement agreement.

Why NSLF Is the Right Partner

Harmful online content can derail opportunities and drain peace of mind. We treat every matter with care and discretion. Our attorneys don’t rely on templates; we write for the human being on the other side who needs a credible reason to help. We collaborate internally, pressure-test arguments, and keep the focus on outcomes that last.

Our Process Strengths

  • Detailed analysis: we identify legal and ethical levers that fit your facts.

  • Tailored strategy: we study outlet policies and history before we draft.

  • Purposeful follow-up: many wins arrive after a well-timed second or third touch.

  • Respectful advocacy: we meet publishers where they are and give them a solution they can own.

  • Aligned incentives: our success-based model keeps everyone focused on results, not billable hours.

The Fee Reality

Hourly models can reward effort over outcomes. Our approach rewards only the result. We want the same thing you do: a cleaner search for your name, and a matter closed with finality.

Avoid Common Pitfalls

We regularly meet clients who first tried to handle this alone or hired hourly counsel or non-lawyer services that escalated poorly. When the first impression is a threat or a template, it can be difficult—but not impossible—to rehabilitate the ask. If you’re deciding where to start, choose the path that preserves your best chance: measured, strategic, lawyer-led outreach.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Why hire an attorney? Can’t I do this myself?

You get one real chance to make a persuasive request. The right tone, documents, and arguments matter. We’ve seen DIY efforts and non-lawyer services sour relationships and limit options. A lawyer fluent in the intersection of media law, privacy, platform policy, and negotiation gives you the best shot at a quiet, durable fix.

Because our work is success-based, we will sometimes decline matters that have already been damaged by prior outreach. It’s not punitive; it’s practical. If a publisher has already been antagonized or flooded with form letters, we may no longer have the conditions we need to help.

How long does the process take?

It varies. Some matters resolve in a couple of weeks; harder ones can take longer. Our engagement gives us up to six months to secure removal or deindexing, which reflects realities outside our control: editorial calendars, legal reviews, and policy cycles. If we don’t achieve success within that timeframe, you receive a full refund.

We begin promptly after intake, gather what we need, and time follow-ups so we’re persistent—not counterproductive. Being seen as a nuisance reduces the odds of a “yes.” We balance urgency with judgment.

What if there are many links?

We try to remove as many as possible. If a handful remain after all removal paths are exhausted, you’ll receive refunds for those sources we couldn’t move. If lasting visibility remains and you need additional mitigation, we can refer you to reputable suppression partners. Strategically, it’s best to remove whatever can be removed first, then decide whether suppression is warranted for leftovers. The fewer links that remain, the more effective—and less expensive—any suppression will be.

Where do you work?

Everywhere in the U.S. We routinely interact with national outlets, regional publishers, police blotter sites, mugshot operators, government domains, legal databases, and social platforms.

What sites have you engaged?

We’ve handled removals, edits, or deindexing with a wide range of publishers and platforms, including (illustrative list): Patch.com, PressReader.com, Nixle.com, Newsbreak.com, Newspapers.com, Tapinto.net, Onlinenewspapers.com, Washingtonpost.com, Dailyvoice.com, CaseText.com, Justia.com, Facebook.com, Timesunion.com, Algemeiner.com, Claimsjournal.com, Dailyadvent.com, NYSPnews.com, ajc.com, DocumentCloud.com, NJ.com, Instagram.com, Tumblr.com, MSN.com, PacerMonitor.com, Leagle.com, Plainsite.com, Mugshots.com, NewspaperArchive.com, latimes.com, USAToday.com, 50states.com, newspaperindex.com, PoconoRecord.com, City-County-Observer.com, Channel3000.com, OCRegister.com, ABC15.com, RLSmedia.com, and others.

Case Study: Turning Frustration Into Success

Many people reach us after trying other routes first. One recent client hired an hourly firm that promised removal but made little headway. Their approach relied on form letters, demanded action under threat of litigation, and cycled through junior staff. After months of fees, the article remained online.

When the client came to us, we reset the strategy. We gathered the underlying records, identified precisely what the editor would need to see, and reframed the ask around timeliness, accuracy, and proportional harm. We proposed a solution the outlet could accept: first anonymization, then noindexing if needed. Our outreach was measured and substantiated. The outlet agreed to noindex and anonymize, and later—after internal review—unpublished the piece. The result: the link stopped appearing for the client’s name, then disappeared entirely. The difference wasn’t louder demands; it was better judgment, documentation, and timing.

What Success Looks Like (Recap)

Success means that when someone searches your name, the harmful result doesn’t appear:

  • Removal (unpublishing): the page is deleted at the source and falls out of search.

  • Anonymization: your name is removed or replaced (e.g., initials), so the page no longer surfaces for searches of your name.

  • Noindexing/Deindexing: the page remains on the site but is excluded from search results for your name (typically via a “noindex” tag, or removal from Google’s index when policy criteria apply).

Any one of these outcomes delivers practical relief. If we cannot achieve at least one within the engagement window, we refund your fee.

Your Role in a Strong Removal Request

The quality of the first approach to a publisher matters. You can help us build the strongest possible request by:

  • Providing complete documentation promptly (dispositions, dismissals, expungements, or other relevant records).

  • Clarifying specific harms you’re experiencing (employment, safety, family, professional licensing)—not to dramatize, but to help us ground the request in concrete impact.

  • Avoiding adversarial outreach on your own (e.g., threats in email or comments), which can make later professional requests harder to land.

  • Resisting the impulse to click the article repeatedly during the process. Unnecessary traffic can reinforce the link’s perceived relevance in search.

Timelines and What to Expect

Most matters follow a similar arc:

  1. Intake and analysis. We confirm the facts, gather records, and determine the best initial ask.

  2. Drafting and quality check. We align tone and arguments with outlet policies and what the facts support.

  3. Submission to the right decision-maker. We do not blast form letters; we reach the person who can say “yes.”

  4. Follow-up cadence. We schedule reminders keyed to the outlet’s review cycles, using phone outreach where helpful.

  5. Escalation paths. If needed, we escalate to editors-in-chief, publishers, parent companies, or legal counsel; or we pivot to anonymization or noindexing.

  6. Confirmation and cleanup. Once an action is taken, we confirm that your name no longer surfaces; if removed, we may submit search cleanup requests to hasten indexing changes.

Some outcomes arrive quickly; others require steady, patient advocacy. The work is deliberate by design.

Why We Don’t Lead With Litigation

Lawsuits are public, slow, and often uncertain. They can also entrench a publisher’s position. Our starting point is not to prove someone wrong, but to give the decision-maker a principled reason to help. When a matter truly raises actionable legal violations—e.g., clear defamation or a qualifying copyright infringement—we evaluate those paths carefully. Most clients, however, benefit from solutions that are faster, quieter, and durable without court involvement.

The Legal and Ethical Levers We Commonly Use

We build requests around arguments that editors and platforms can act on:

  • Accuracy and context: highlighting outcomes (dismissal, not-guilty, expungement) that the article doesn’t reflect, or clarifying details that reduce unfair inferences.

  • Timeliness and newsworthiness: showing how the public interest has diminished over time relative to ongoing harm.

  • Fairness to third parties: documenting concrete effects on children and uninvolved family, and on employment and community standing.

  • Ethical standards: pointing to widely recognized journalism principles (e.g., heightened sensitivity for juveniles or mental health considerations) where appropriate.

  • Platform policies: aligning our request to the site’s own rules or to search engine policy where applicable.

  • Legal footing: using DMCA where copyrights are implicated, pursuing sealing/expungement to strengthen the case, or—where justified—seeking court orders to protect privacy in docketed filings.

When full removal is unlikely, we often propose an intermediate remedy—anonymization or noindex—that addresses harm without erasing the record.

Why We Refer Out Suppression Work

Suppression is a marketing function, not a legal one. It can help when a publisher simply won’t change the source page, but it requires ongoing SEO management. We do not run suppression campaigns.

Our Review Board: More Eyes, Better Outcomes

Each week, our Content Removal Attorney Review Board meets to evaluate complex matters, surface overlooked angles, and stress-test tone and timing. This isn’t performative. It’s our way of ensuring that what we send out reflects multiple perspectives and the practical realities of newsroom and platform decision-making.

Transparent Pricing and Payment Options

We charge a flat fee per source (typically $3,000) that we earn only upon success—defined as removal, effective anonymization, or Google-level deindexing for your name. If we don’t get there, we refund your fee. To make getting started simpler, financing options may be available so you can begin with little money down and spread payments over time.

A Note on Scope and Expectations

  • What we control: the quality of the request, the thoroughness of documentation, the choice of recipient, and the pacing of follow-ups.

  • What we don’t control: editorial boards, internal counsel decisions, and search engine indexing speeds.

  • What we promise: we will advocate with care and persistence and keep you informed; if we do not achieve the defined success outcome in the engagement window, you will not be charged.

Why This Work Is Deliberately Quiet

Publicizing a removal effort is rarely helpful. We avoid public exchanges and keep correspondence professional, factual, and off the record where appropriate. That discretion protects you, and it gives decision-makers the space to take a reasonable, humane action without feeling litigated in the court of public opinion.

Common Pitfalls We Help Clients Avoid

  • Form-letter blasts. Mass-mailing the same demand to every inbox at a publisher is a fast way to get ignored.

  • Threats and deadlines. They sound forceful but often close doors.

  • Over-documenting sensitive detail. More is not always better; it’s about the right facts in the right hands.

  • Impatience with follow-ups. There’s a cadence to internal reviews; matching it increases the chance of a “yes.”

When There Are Many Links

We prioritize the most visible and most damaging sources first, then work down the list. Removing high-ranking items often changes the entire search landscape. If a few links remain after we’ve exhausted removal paths, we refund those sources and can refer you to reputable suppression specialists if you want to pursue further mitigation.

Quiet Wins, Lasting Relief

Across news sites, government pages, social platforms, and docket aggregators, the same principles apply: show why the link, as currently presented and indexed, no longer serves the public, and offer a solution the publisher can own. The most meaningful feedback we receive isn’t about legal nuance; it’s when clients say they finally searched their name and felt nothing at all—just the ordinary relief of not being defined by the worst-possible version of their past.

What We Cover in Detail During Your Consultation

  • Your goals. Removal, anonymization, or deindexing—and how each would change your day-to-day.

  • Your facts. Dispositions, expungements, and any records that will strengthen the request.

  • Your risk profile. Where outreach should be measured, and where a more direct approach is appropriate.

  • Your timeline. Any immovable dates (e.g., licensing, new employment) that inform our pacing.

  • Your budget preferences. Flat-fee scope, and whether financing support is helpful.

Why We Lead With Measured Advocacy

Editors and platform teams are asked to weigh difficult trade-offs: history and openness versus fairness to private people in a search-driven world. Our job is to meet them where they are—on principle and with proof—and to present a solution that feels not like erasure but responsible stewardship.

Final Checklist (What We’ll Ask You For)

  • All URLs you want addressed (direct links, not screenshots).

  • Any case documents (docket sheets, orders, dispositions, expungements).

  • A short, factual impact summary (employment/licensure risks, family or safety concerns).

  • Any prior communications you or others have sent to the publisher or platform.

  • A list of priority links (which results harm you most).

Schedule a Consultation

If you’re weighing next steps, a short conversation can help clarify the best path forward. We’ll review your links, outline realistic outcomes, and answer your questions—plainly. Should you retain us, our work begins promptly; if removal proves unattainable under the facts and policies, you won’t be charged.

Illustrative Platforms and Publishers We’ve Engaged

Patch.com • PressReader.com • Nixle.com • Newsbreak.com • Newspapers.com • Tapinto.net • Onlinenewspapers.com • Washingtonpost.com • Dailyvoice.com • CaseText.com • Justia.com • Facebook.com • Timesunion.com • Algemeiner.com • Claimsjournal.com • Dailyadvent.com • NYSPnews.com • ajc.com • DocumentCloud.com • NJ.com • Instagram.com • Tumblr.com • MSN.com • PacerMonitor.com • Leagle.com • Plainsite.com • Mugshots.com • NewspaperArchive.com • latimes.com • USAToday.com • 50states.com • newspaperindex.com • PoconoRecord.com • City-County-Observer.com • Algemeiner.com • Channel3000.com • OCRegister.com • ABC15.com • RLSmedia.com

Learn More in Our Internet Content Removal Resource Hub

If you want to understand exactly how online content removal works—and how to maximize your chances of success—visit our Internet Content Removal Resource Hub.

Inside, you’ll find a complete library of guides written by our attorneys, including:

Each resource includes FAQs, timelines, and proven strategies based on hundreds of successful removals across major platforms.