The US Vs. Europe: Freedom of Expression Vs. Privacy

First time accepted submitter GoddersUK (1262110) writes "Rory Cellan-Jones writes about the recent European Court judgement on the right to be forgotten in terms of US/EU cultural differences (and perhaps a bit of bitterness on the EU side at U.S. influence online): 'He tells me... ..."In the past if you were in Germany you were never worried that some encyclopedia website based in the United States was going to name you as a murderer after you got out of jail because that was inconceivable. Today that can happen, so the cultural gap that was always there about the regulation of speech is becoming more visible."... Europeans who have been told that the Internet is basically ungovernable — and if it does have guiding principles then they come from the land of the free — are expressing some satisfaction that court has refused to believe that.' And, certainly, it seems, here in the UK, that even MEPs keen on the principle don't really know how this ruling will work in practice or what the wider consequences will be. Video here."

Comments

The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem is that some nations want to enforce their rules on other nations.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Create a couple of giant hubs in the Atlantic and Pacific, controlled by NOBODY. Let countries that want to hook up to them hook up to them, and then regulate their own internet however they like. But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[TubeSteak]

But they don't get to govern what other people in other countries say. The very idea is pretty obvious, unworkable, globalist-statist nonsense.

Who says this governs what other people in other countries say?

The original court decision was twofold
1. You have no right to be forgotten by the Newspaper that published the story
2. You have a right to be forgotten by search engines.

This only applies in the EU and only applies to companies incorporated in the EU.
Google is welcome to shut down its various European subsidiaries (including the ones in Ireland and the Netherlands that they use to shelter income).
There's a precedent for this, if you can recall when Google China was shut down and redirected to Google's Hong Kong page.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[rudy_wayne]

While I don't particularly think they should have been fired in the first place (businesses should not be concerned with the beliefs of individuals)... these people were fired by their organizations/companies, not the government. It was totally legal and legitimate.

It's legal, but that doesn't make it right. Technically, the first Amendment only prevents the government from restricting free speech. That restriction should apply to every one.

If your ability to earn a living can be taken away because of something you said or did, even though what you did is perfectly legal and you broke no laws, and even though you weren't at work when you said or did it, then you have effectively created a society where there is no free speech.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[beelsebob]

The problem is, what you're saying here is actually "enforcing your rules on other nations". You want the rule to be "I'm free to do whatever I want", which is basically the American ruleset. You are trying to enforce that on Europe, where the rule is "no, actually, that hurts someone else, you can't do it".

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[TubeSteak]

First, why should search engines not enjoy the same free speech rights as newspapers?

You're asking the wrong question.
If we can agree that internet search engines are not newspapers,
then the burden falls upon search engines to explain why they should receive the special status granted to newspapers.

Second, what defines an Internet service as a "search engine" or a "newspaper"? Suppose I run on online newspaper that has a search function, allowing users to search past articles about any topic? Am I now a search engine?

You are not an internet search engine.
The court distinguishes between (1) a newspaper with a searchable index and (2) a website that indexes other websites on the internet.

Suppose my newspaper becomes so popular it becomes the de facto place where people go to search for news stories? Do different rules apply then?

Still not an internet search engine.

Or does this ruling simply apply to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content?

The decision is dense, but readable.
If you want the highlights, just skip to the conclusion

TLDR: this ruling simply applies to sites that link to content on other sites rather than it's own original content
Still TLDR: With all kinds of legal parsing to determine who is processing the data and whether they are under European jurisdiction.

Now, do online newspapers lose the ability to link to other source material in their articles?

No, they don't. Because they are not internet search engines.

The line between newspapers and search engines may become fuzzy, if it isn't already. Do you see the problem?

The line is not fuzzy and I do not see "the problem."
The only problem I see is that this is horribly inconvenient for Google and every other search engine.
But, according to the court, the inconvenience to Google's business model does not outweigh citizens rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject's name.

However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.

Don't try to make this more complicated than it is.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company. And just like today, the megacorps of the day got special treatment from their respective governments.

That's one of the things we fought a war to get away from.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

Individual speech is the thing protected by the Constitution. Organized pressure to fire somebody from their job is not free speech, it's mob rule.

There is a difference. The line might be a bit gray, but it's there.

So let's say you were an atheist. (I'm not saying you are, it's just hypothetical.) And because of your atheism, you believe that John Smith should not be able to post monuments to Jesus on government property. (Again just hypothetical.)

Lots of people would consider that to be freedom of religion. You might disagree. So in those circumstances, would you say it was socially acceptable to post a massive internet campaign to insult and disparage John Smith, boycott the company he just happens to work for, and demand that he be fired?

I am just curious what your answer to that would be.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[ShanghaiBill]

There were a few "Megacorps", even then. Like the East India company.

People that complain that corporations are worse than ever are very ignorant of history. For centuries, the East India Company had their own army, waged war in their own name, and occasionally executed people that failed to pay their bills. No modern corporation even comes close.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[arth1]

seems to me that basic free speech and free thought is that you cannot command me to forget something, nor command me not to share what I know (ignoring confidentiality agreements which are irrelevant here).

And here I think the great cultural divide between Europe and USA rears its head. While you cannot be commanded to forget, in Europe, you are expected to forget. The judicial systems of Europe are based on being able to fully rehabilitate, and the former offender's slate is wiped clean.
In the US, you continue to be punished for past offenses until the day you die. Whether you've been released or not, you don't have a right, legally or culturally to a clean slate.

Personally, I think this difference is due to religious thinking, where the great majority of Americans believe in a "soul", and that a 60 year old man can and should be held responsible for what a 20 year old did. Add that justice is largely revenge based (an eye for an eye), and there must always be someone to punish, even after the world has moved on.

The Northern European view is that people change, and that the 60 year old man is not the same person as the 20 year old. People change, and should not be held responsible for views they no longer hold or crimes for which they've served their sentence. There is no "soul", so when the person has changed, the decent thing to do is to forget and not bring it up again. Give people a chance to start over.

Newspapers are historical documents. But someone in Northern Europe going through old newspapers to dig up old dirt is seen as an arsehole. While not illegal, it's against all cultural decency.. in the US, it would be seen as due diligence.

Re: The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[Jane Q. Public]

In your atheist analogy, the atheist isn't really harmed except in the opportunity cost of putting something other than monuments to Jesus on the property, and indirectly from the promotion of Christianity as the state religion implicitly marginalizing atheists among others.

This is patently untrue. The atheist (let's assume he's a militant atheist) feels that religion rots kids mind and is completely horrified by the thought of government support for a particular religion like Christianity. So not only does he see it as personal harm, in his honest opinion it is grossly harmful to society as a whole. (This is, in fact, a situation that is rather close to a devout Christian believing that homosexuality is a crime against God and society. BUT I'm not claiming either side is right.)

And John Smith needs to be the CEO of, say, a law firm, which is itself not religiously oriented and has Christian, atheist, and other employees, and among whose many legal services is the ability to file disputes based on religious discrimination.

I don't give a damn whether he is CEO of Citicorp or a mail clerk in a medium-sized business. Business is business, and personal politics are something else. Too much mixing of business with politics is already one of the biggest problems with this country today. We hardly need more of it.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[s.petry]

No modern corporation even comes close.

I beg to differ, as do tens of thousands of South Americans that were slaughtered by Dole goons. That is just one of the few we know about, so there are plenty just as bad and probably worse today.

Re:The Problem Isn't "Free Speech vs Privacy"

[AmiMoJo]

Newspapers don't get special consideration, but the court made it clear that purely factual publishing is not covered by this ruling. Such publishing is, in general, protected. Of course it must follow the law, so for example in the UK suspects accused of a crime cannot be named if they are under 18, and in Germany they can't refer to spent criminal convictions. The key point is that articles are written by people, who are responsible for complying with the law, and report factual information.

Google doesn't publish, it gathers and aggregates data about people. It essentially creates a profile of someone based on publicly available information. It does this automatically, and thus far not in accordance with various EU laws. The court is saying that it must come into compliance, like all publishers must do already.

Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[TrollstonButterbeans]

There are a large number of things that Europe "gets right".

Europe doesn't realize that privacy in theory becomes censorship in practice.

There are a large number of things that the USA "gets right".

The USA doesn't realize an *unregulated* free market without *PROPER* government supervision means all companies merge into one company and then do really shitty things.

Which form of stupid to do you prefer: ___________ >>--- fill in your choice.

(This is my view of what happens, in Europe ultimately there ends up being a Ministry of Censorship that results in websites warning about cookies and the plutocracy having more rights, while in the USA evil corporations end up being immune to government because they contribute $$$ to our broken political system.)

Re:Europe is shortsighted; the USA oblivious

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As far as I'm aware, there is literally no country in the world that actually has 100% free speech protection in law. Certainly the US does not: there are numerous things that you are not free to express without penalty. You can shout about your theoretical First Amendment protections as much as you want, but you can still be sued for infringing copyright, you can still be arrested for threatening to kill someone, etc.

Equating privacy protection with censorship misses the point. There's an old saying that your right to swing your fist ends at the bridge of my nose. It's not strictly true from a modern legal perspective, but the point that you need to balance many rights and freedoms for everyone is just as valid as it ever was. There will always be a tension between freedom of expression and right to privacy, and using inflammatory language like "censorship" to describe anything but an absolutely one-sided position isn't going to achieve anything constructive.

In fact, it's rather ironic that in one paragraph you attack the idea of protecting privacy as a form of censorship, yet in the very next paragraph you argue for government supervision and market regulation so that companies are not free to act as they wish.

TTIP

[manu0601]

Don't worry, the upcoming Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will fix that divergence by removing any European specific thing from Europe.

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[Opportunist]

It's a cultural thing. Even Churchill knew that:

“In England, everything is permitted, except that which is forbidden.
In Germany, everything is forbidden, except that which is permitted.
In France, everything is permitted even that which is forbidden.
In the USSR, everything is forbidden, even that which is permitted.”

Re:US vs Europe, again?

[flyneye]

In the U.S. , if it is forbidden, a little money to the right politician will get you a permit.