‘Right to be forgotten’ threatens free speech

Admin

Last year the European Union’s highest court ruled that European citizens have a “right to be forgotten” when it comes to search links to unfavorable Internet posts that are harmful and irrelevant. The court ruled in favor of a Spanish citizen who complained that Google’s links to an old notice about his house being repossessed violated his privacy rights because the issue was now irrelevant. The court ruled that search engines must have a mechanism to allow people to request the removal of links to negative stories, even if the stories themselves remained online. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The word “manners” is a forgotten word. Manners are not taught or practice anymore.

0

Interesting. The author writes, “….I also want to protect our precious First Amendment, which is the cornerstone of our democracy. ….. before we rush to suppress any form of speech, we must consider the broader ramifications and precedents and — if we must err — we should err on the side of free speech.”

So would this author would, therefore, oppose SB448 because of it chilling effect on the free speech of Registered Citizens? I would bet that, as CEO of ConnectSafely.org, he probably supports SB448. RCs have no rights, right?

0

I am reminded of something Andrew P Napolitano said on a recent Daily Show to the effect that individuals have a right to free speech, but governments do not. One wonders if he meant that to apply to other social constructs, like corporations, Google included?
Point is, if government could not provide a readily available database in the form of the public registry, the extortion sites would be deprived of an easy and profitable way to ruin the lives of registrants and people mistaken for registrants.

0

Any lawyer (including Janice) will tell you that a “right” is a privilege granted to you by a higher authority. Unless you stick the word “inalienable” in front of it, your rights are limited and subject to change at any time.

0
Reply

Let this be a reminder of how important it is to answer the call when a posting asks us to write letters, make phone calls and become pro-active in challenging the actions of bullies or haters. While we can rightfully complain, it is better that we learn how to defend ourselves and numbers is a good start. The truth is on our side, the facts expose the bullies and the haters, but we must stand up and help. Being a warrior is a good feeling.

0