Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by greglindahl on Saturday April 07, 2018 @12:30PM
(#16781421)
You missed my actual point, which is that the search engine is just showing what a website published. RTBF attacks the search engine in that case, not the actual website.
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by DanBC on Saturday April 07, 2018 @02:45PM
(#16782110)
And you've missed the point that RTBF isn't automatic, and that it is balanced against the right for search engines to publish information.
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by greglindahl on Saturday April 07, 2018 @04:28PM
(#16782738)
With all of the cost pushed on the search engine. Which is a huge barrier to entry, yet Europe says it wants more search engines.
BTW, search engines don't "publish" information in the US sense of the word. The way Russia forces Yandex to self-censor is that Yandex is liable for everything they show to users. That's 'publishing' in the US sense. Newspapers have publishers, and the publisher is the person you sue if you think the newspaper has libeled you.
Meanwhile, Europe (mostly) doesn't consider RTBF to be censorship because it only involves censoring search engines and not newspapers. Except that people are filing RTBF against newspaper site search, too.
No-where[1] has the US's extremist version of freedom of speech. Europe has a different form of free speech, and in this example Eric's right to be forgotton probably doesn't trump Someone's right to publish true information.
I guess there'd be some judicial attempt to balance these two rights: Does Eric pose a continuing risk to the public from drunk driving? Is Eric a public figure who's claimed to never have driven drunk? Was this a one off event that happened many years ago, never repeated? This would be something courts are able to decide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...