> By his own account, Christian then said, "Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it,"

I hadn't heard that detail before. I can see how someone might legitimately interpret that as a threat.

Imagine being in her shoes: you're peacefully walking your dog in the park when a stranger confronts you, says "I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it", and approaches your dog. Haven't we all seen enough videos to be concerned about what might happen next? From what I can tell, he seems like a good guy, and I don't think anything bad would have happened, but she couldn't know that at the time.

Which all reinforces the larger point: when the Internet reacts to a story, important details are buried and overlooked. Politicians and activists ignore the particulars of the case and shape it to fit their own agenda. The media sensationalizes the story for clicks. An outraged mob dismisses nuance as x-ism or y-phobia. Employers acquiesce to the demands of the mob simply to avoid becoming a target.

The right to be forgotten is important, because Internet justice is rarely just.