Having an unbiased conduit is essential for the truth else the conduit for nearly all information in the world will say only what people with money and influence say is correct.
Having bad people say damaging untrue things is a necessary cost we must be willing to bear in order to have a truly free internet.
The right to be forgotten is a cure worse than the disease.
Is it? It's not a necessary thing that we must be willing to bear to have freedom of speech in the United States (if you believe we have freedom of speech in the United States). We have libel and slander laws, and other exceptions. I don't see people shouting those down often. Do you believe those should not exist? If not, what makes the internet different?
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Right now if you google my name, there's a forum out there that says I'm a child molester based on zero evidence, and the only reason it's up is because I am following my legal requirements as a website operator per the ToU to not release personally identifying information on one of my users. I've talked to attorneys about it, but the consensus is that I'd need at least $30k to chase the guy down, with no guarantee of a return at the end, and that in the meantime harassment from this guy would get worse.
So maybe people saying damaging untrue things is a necessary cost for freedom of speech, but it's sure as hell a pain in the ass if you're on the wrong side of it.
The latter part is true, the former part is less so; you can use John/Jane Doe lawsuits and then subpoena third parties to discover the specific identities.
If they were reluctant their host might well be willing to drop them to avoid being dragged into it.
YOU can probably avoid thousands of dollars in costs by doing a bit of legwork they probably aren't as lucky.
As far as the host, the problem turns into the same one as the IP enforcement has: Kill one head, and two more appear. My slanderer appears to not have a job, so it's no problem for him to keep moving on and getting new hosting. And for the next host he lands on, I've made myself a real target of that website.
Half the time I feel like this is a real problem with UBI proposals -- if we let people have free time all day, a certain fraction is going to waste it with libel or gamergate or SJW stuff, where the people who actually do something with their lives get attacked for no apparent reason. Like, I'm a huge fan of UBI, but without social support for self-worth outside of paid work, it's going to create a whole new set of social problems. Still a more tractable problem than poverty, I'd hope.
That is not the case. You are describing "found innocent." "Not guilty" is just that: the absence of having been found guilty of a crime.
In other words, legally that person has not been found to be guilty of murder, but they also have not been found to have not committed murder. Nothing has been found one way or the other.
In America, we find people not guilty. We also uphold the innocent until proven guilty thing. Perhaps your jurisdiction is different?
If they are not found guilty, the presumption is innocence.
This has legal ramifications in the civil justice system (the one where somebody sues another), where the barrier of judgment is a "preponderance of evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
OJ Simpson escaped a murder charge with a verdict of not guilty, but was found in civil court to have committed the tort of "wrongful death", and had to pay a lot of money (civil court cannot jail you).
Does anyone really think OJ Simpson was actually innocent?
People who have not yet been found guilty are presumed to be innocent. You are absolutely correct. However, the statement I disagreed with was different. It was "If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder." Legally, that person is presumed innocent, like everyone else, but being found not guilty grants no special "definitely didn't commit murder" status.
If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder, and understandably and justifiably would not want Google (or anyone else) to portray otherwise.