Pianist Asks Washington Post To Remove Review Under "Right To Be Forgotten"

Goatbert writes with word that pianist Dejan Lazic, unhappy with the opinion of Post music critic Anne Midgette, "has asked the Washington Post to remove an old review from their site in perhaps the best example yet of why it is both a terrible ruling and concept." It’s the first request The Post has received under the E.U. ruling. It’s also a truly fascinating, troubling demonstration of how the ruling could work. “To wish for such an article to be removed from the internet has absolutely nothing to do with censorship or with closing down our access to information,” Lazic explained in a follow-up e-mail to The Post. Instead, he argued, it has to do with control of one’s personal image — control of, as he puts it, “the truth.” (Here is the 2010 review to which Lazic objects.)

Comments

As many have pointed out...

[cirby]

Sure. Remove the Google link to the bad review.

And every other link to the guy. Forever.

No more searches on him, for the entire rest of his performing career.

It's the only way to keep that review from sneaking back into future search results.

Re:As many have pointed out...

[whoever57]

Sure. Remove the Google link to the bad review.

Your reading skills are seriously lacking. The pianist has asked the Washington Post to remove the review. Not google. The Washington Post.

From what I read of the orginal ruling that created the right to be forgotten, it is not applicable to the original publisher (in this case the WP), only search engines like Google.

I suggest that Mr. Lazic has a discussion with Ms. Streisand. He might find it enlightening.

Did anyone think it wouldn't work this way ?

[Crashmarik]

Overwhelmingly you are going to have people with mis deeds wanting to have those deleted from history. Just imagine the Enron principals decide to emigrate and have their histories expunged ?

/wiki/Streisand_effect

[Technician]

I wonder if they are knowedgable of the Streisand effect and the Slashdot effect. If not, they will know now. LOL. The news of the request is more important news than any old review they were trying to escape.

No kidding

[Ol Olsoc]

Who would ever have thought that people would use "right to be forgotten" as a way to eliminate any and all negative comments about themselves, and turn the internet into their personal P.R. machine? This wasn't even an unforeseen consequences, it was a dead lock that people would attempt to squelch any opposition.

I'm shocked, I tell you.

Re:its terrible

[__aaltlg1547]

It won't work. We have a First Amendment here. Any law seeking to restrain the press from reporting news can't be enforced.

Public image created by public, not owned by you.

[DumbSwede]

You do NOT have a RIGHT to control your public image. A public image is something that emerges from HOW you perform in public.

You do NOT have a RIGHT to not have your religion, beliefs, politics offended.

You CAN be just as misguided, idiotic, self absorbed as you want to be as long as I am not forced to change my behaviors to accommodate your stupid world views.

The way I see it, I DO have the RIGHT to see, believe, read, write, learn, say, do what I want want if it doesn't interfere with someone else's right to do the same. If you do not agree with that, then we have a problem.

Re:Sparks but no flame: Pianist Dejan Lazic at Ken

[Dutch Gun]

Am I the only one who actually laughed out loud at the utter pretentiousness of this review?

detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet.

Amazing. It tells me absolutely nothing except that the writer is in love with her own prose. It's a shame Mr. Lazic couldn't see this review with the proper humor and irreverence it deserves. I think I'd wear it as a badge of honor if I was criticized with this sort of pomposity. Instead, he's gone and done something for which he should be rightfully shamed - much worse than an apparently decent but lackluster performance.

The saddest thing about this

[Prune]

is that the review has within it significant amount of praise, and the criticism is mostly constructive. The pianist should have taken this as a learning opportunity more than anything else. The critic closes the review with what is basically an encouragement for the pianist to not limit his considerable aptitude at the keys to mere showmanship, and to strive for true greatness. I don't know the current stage of professional development of this pianist, but there are two main possibilities: either he's not improved since the review, or he has. If the former, he has no one to blame but himself, and more recent reviews would probably be in line with this one--so why single it out? If the latter, then this review should not be seen as a black mark on his career, but a historical point of reference and a symbol of his continued improvement--so again, why try to hide it? The trappings of the ego often end up working against its owner.

Re:its terrible

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Nothing is ever "clearly". The pianist could argue that he's greatly improved since then and thus the post is now wrong, outdated, and unduly hurts the pianist. Therefore it's in the public interest to remove that terrible post from the internet.

Then the artist should invite the Post reviewer to his next concert and ask the Post to amend the review by adding a link to a new article describing how the artist has improved.

Re:its terrible

[AmiMoJo]

It won't work in Europe either. He sent the request to the newspaper, not the search engine. Newspapers are protected by the public record defence. Google would tell him to sod off as well, because the article is clearly relevant and current.

We really need to stop reacting to every idiot making these requests. I get hundreds of moronic DMCA requests a year from mindless fools who don't even realize that I'm not in the US and the law doesn't apply to me. I don't even have a .us domain name. I don't post articles to Slashdot about how my rights are being infringed by spam DMCA requests that I don't even read, even though it's a stupid law and violates many of the freedoms we enjoy in Europe.