Slashdot Mirror
Google Seeks To Limit 'Right To Be Forgotten' By Claiming It's Journalistic (cjr.org)
"In the first 'right to be forgotten' case to reach England's High Court, two men are fighting to keep their past crimes out of Google's search results, and the tech giant is fighting back by claiming it's 'journalistic.'" Chava Gourarie reports via Columbia Journalism Review: The case, which is actually two nearly identical cases, involves two businessmen who were both convicted of white-collar crimes in the '90s, and requested that Google delist several URLs referencing their convictions, including news articles. When Google denied their requests, they sued under a 2014 European Union ruling which established the right of individuals to have information delisted from search indexes under certain conditions. In its defense, Google has argued that it should be protected under an exception for journalism because it provides access to journalistic content. Even as a legal sleight of hand, the argument is quite a departure from Google's customary efforts to present itself as a disinterested arbiter of information, a position that has become more untenable with time.
Gareth Corfield, a reporter for The Register who covered the cases from the courtroom, said it's disingenuous of Google to put on the mantle of journalism only when it suits them. "They've gone through great lengths to say they don't make any editorial judgement in processing results," Corfield said, but "it now wants you to believe it is on a par with journalism." As the first case to test the "right to be forgotten" in England's High Court, its outcome will likely set some ground rules in the roiling debate between personal privacy and freedom of expression on the internet. Google's sudden identification with journalism may be a legal gambit, but it could have far-reaching effects across the landscape of data protection laws.
Gareth Corfield, a reporter for The Register who covered the cases from the courtroom, said it's disingenuous of Google to put on the mantle of journalism only when it suits them. "They've gone through great lengths to say they don't make any editorial judgement in processing results," Corfield said, but "it now wants you to believe it is on a par with journalism." As the first case to test the "right to be forgotten" in England's High Court, its outcome will likely set some ground rules in the roiling debate between personal privacy and freedom of expression on the internet. Google's sudden identification with journalism may be a legal gambit, but it could have far-reaching effects across the landscape of data protection laws.
I hate whenever a term is considered a "right". You right to be forgotten has to be balanced with my right to know what criminal shit you did. And if you were convicted of a crime you better have a very good reason why your right is more important than mine. Excluding criminal acts this whole exercise of being forgotten sickens me. We all do stupid things and say even worse, at least those of us who have ever actually done something in our lives. Most people who want to punish people for what they find online are punishing them for it being public not for what they have done. I honestly don't care if there happen to be pictures of my girlfriend naked on the internet, or something a coworker has posted in a comment section and later regretted.
However, by putting so much emphasis on deleting these things we add to the shame of the original act. Everyone should say what you are thinking, post a picture of yourself naked, then when it is so common then no one will actually care. If you want my opinion on something, ask me and have a civilized conversation about it.
Right. Given that there's an explicit exception for journalism in the "Right to be Forgotten" law, I would think it to be completely reasonable for links to journalistic content to also not fall under this law. Apparently an EU court ruled that this wasn't the case some years prior, so we'll see. But I have no understanding why it makes sense for links to journalistic content to be considered different from the content itself.
They shouldn't have it hang over them for the rest of their lives.
If we are going give up the principle of free speech and censor the truth for their benefit, then we will soon find plenty of other excuses for censorship as well.
Their "right" to force others to erase their past should not trump the right of prospective employers to know the truth that they were once embezzlers. "Serving their time" doesn't always change their character.
Your freedom of expression doesn't include limitless monetizing of the information you possess.
You seem to be confused. In Europe, they only pretend to give you free speech, but in reality, it doesn't exist. Not only for this, but for the way they also define hate speech: Basically if somebody considers something you say to be offensive, then you go to jail. Police are given their own discretion to decide if what you say is hate speech, mainly because there is no actual definition of what qualifies as hate speech, just a list of protected categories.
Your freedom of expression doesn't include limitless monetizing of the information you possess.
Yes it does, Freedom of the press is not freedom for only non-profit publishers and unpaid journalists.
It should never be illegal to speak or publish the truth.
You seem to be confused. In Europe, they only pretend to give you free speech, but in reality, it doesn't exist.
Freedom of expression is a human right. Governments may stop you from exercising that right, but it is still an intrinsic right of every human.