What does the EU's "right to be forgotten" ruling require and not require?
The decision handed down by the ECJ in a dispute between a Spanish man, who was suing a Spanish newspaper (to be precise, its website), and Google Spain has sent shockwaves through the internet industry. In effect, the judges have reiterated that in Europe there is a "right to be forgotten" - which applies specifically to search engines but not to news websites (or other journalistic endeavour) and that people can therefore ask to be removed from search indexes.
What arguments did the NPR panelists make in favor and against the idea of adopting similar legislation in the USA?
@Arguments against the idea
There main point was brought by stating that the "right to be forgotten" is censorship. That ability, that right to remember is one of the most fundamental rights of being a human being. By suppressing true information, not libel, not defamation, not hate speech. True information intrudes into our collective memory by trying to suppress thedocuments that constitute that memory. So, it talks about the regulation ofspeech and, really, the regulation of thought which is ultimately what memory is. So,the law is more like the right to force people to forget true information.The problem, though, is that people have the right to control what they remember. theyhave the right to control what they say. they do not have the right to control what othersremember. People do not have the right to control what others say. And so for that reason, wemust treat the "right to be forgotten" as it is, which is a form of censorship. So, as said,censorship in a free and democratic society needs to clear a very high bar to bejustified. The "right to be forgotten" does not meet that bar.
"First of all, it's way too prone to abuse. It is vague, it is subjective.”
The better way to do it is that wecould have some kind of court mechanism adjudicate the "right to be forgotten" andcome up with a body of case law that would define the bounds of the right, flush it outand so forth.
There main point was brought by stating that the "right to be forgotten" is censorship. That ability, that right to remember is one of the most fundamental rights of being a human being. By suppressing true information, not libel, not defamation, not hate speech. True information intrudes into our collective memory by trying to suppress thedocuments that constitute that memory. So, it talks about the regulation ofspeech and, really, the regulation of thought which is ultimately what memory is. So,the law is more like the right to force people to forget true information.The problem, though, is that people have the right to control what they remember. theyhave the right to control what they say. they do not have the right to control what othersremember. People do not have the right to control what others say. And so for that reason, wemust treat the "right to be forgotten" as it is, which is a form of censorship. So, as said,censorship in a free and democratic society needs to clear a very high bar to bejustified. The "right to be forgotten" does not meet that bar.
"First of all, it's way too prone to abuse. It is vague, it is subjective.”
The better way to do it is that wecould have some kind of court mechanism adjudicate the "right to be forgotten" andcome up with a body of case law that would define the bounds of the right, flush it outand so forth.
@Arguments in favor
One can control data about him and his profile. When you putin the name of an individual, Google gives you more than anything else, any othersource of information about this person, and the law made in EU requires that in the same way that people can ask data brokers, the bank, they can ask in school after acertain time for things to be deleted, they should be able to ask Google fordeletion. Now, the person in question who brought this case from Spain, he had notpaid some social contributions and therefore his house had been confiscated and it wasa legal obligation in Spain to have a publication in a newspaper of this fact in order tomake the auctioning of the house to cover the social contributions better and attractivefor the Spanish state, because if it's in the newspaper there will be more people biddingfor this house.So, the court said you cannot ask the newspaper to take down the information becausethey have a legal obligation to publish, but Google you can ask. And this is a principlewhich also applies when it comes to free speech and democracy. It may well be thatGoogle has to put things -- take things down, but it doesn't mean the informationdisappears. It will stay in the newspaper. It stays on the website of the newspaper ofthe BBC, of the television station, all this stays around, but Google is subject to the samelaw of self-control of information, of self-determination of individuals, which allowsthem to ask first what do you have about me and second, please delete.
One can control data about him and his profile. When you putin the name of an individual, Google gives you more than anything else, any othersource of information about this person, and the law made in EU requires that in the same way that people can ask data brokers, the bank, they can ask in school after acertain time for things to be deleted, they should be able to ask Google fordeletion. Now, the person in question who brought this case from Spain, he had notpaid some social contributions and therefore his house had been confiscated and it wasa legal obligation in Spain to have a publication in a newspaper of this fact in order tomake the auctioning of the house to cover the social contributions better and attractivefor the Spanish state, because if it's in the newspaper there will be more people biddingfor this house.So, the court said you cannot ask the newspaper to take down the information becausethey have a legal obligation to publish, but Google you can ask. And this is a principlewhich also applies when it comes to free speech and democracy. It may well be thatGoogle has to put things -- take things down, but it doesn't mean the informationdisappears. It will stay in the newspaper. It stays on the website of the newspaper ofthe BBC, of the television station, all this stays around, but Google is subject to the samelaw of self-control of information, of self-determination of individuals, which allowsthem to ask first what do you have about me and second, please delete.
Where do you stand? Should we have similar legislation in the US? What would be the benefits and what would be the drawbacks?
In a free country, you as an individual must have the right to control what others know aboutyou. You must be able to ask “What do you have?” and you must be able to ask fordeletion, of course within reason. You cannot ask a doctor to delete the medicalrecords, because the doctor must keep them either to show what he has done or shehas done in terms of liability. Of course you can't ask the press to delete a bad review ifyou are a concert pianist, or for that matter if you are someone who has donemalpractice or if you are a politician. There are limits to this, which are limits which areimportant in a democratic society, because that's what you will hear from the otherside, that this is an attack on democracy.I believe democracy needs both. We needs privacy. We need the ability of theindividual to decide himself or herself what the state in particular knows about them,because if you don't have the privacy, how can you organize dissent? How can youorganize a new political party, which maybe wants to, if already thegovernment always knows everything about you. So, we need privacy in a free society as we need free speech.