The Right to be Forgotten vs. Free Speech

In recent years regulators all over the world, especially in the European Union (EU), have increased their efforts to enact data privacy laws. Some would say, the right to be forgotten marked the end of free speech in the modern internet and others endorse the necessity of strong internet privacy laws. Although I believe there are profound reasons for a right to be forgotten, it undoubtedly competes with the fundamental, hard-earned law of free speech. I therefore want to lay out the idea behind this new legal concept of a right to be forgotten, in order to reach a verdict if it prevents or maybe supplements free speech.

The Tension

Conclusion

Does the Law make the Internet "dumber" than it is?

What does this question mean? It's utterly obscure to the reader who doesn't already know what you think. That discourages the reader from pressing on.

You are not using markdown correctly to make links. You can see from the rendered page that you're not getting what you want. Look again at the reference documentation. I replaced the link above with the correct markdown, and you should fix the rest.

Mr. González sued Google, alleging that the results of the search engine led to disadvantageous newspaper articles, which allegedly were no longer relevant and were damaging his reputation. The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") ruled that the right to request the removal of inaccurate, excessive or irrelevant links arises from a fundamental right to privacy which is to be weighted higher than the economic interest of a commercial firm such as a newspaper or even, in some circumstances, the public interest in access to such information.

You haven't said anything that explains your initial question. You have described some legal material, but beyond summarizing the material, you have added no analysis of your own and have not presented an independent ideal, or framework in which to understand the material you describe. The primary route to improvement of the draft is to figure out what your idea is here. Put it at the top of the essay, clearly, in a sentence or two, so the reader knows what idea you want her to acquire. Then provide only the references and the details of the legal material necessary to show how you came by and support your idea. From a draft of that type we should be able to make further rapid progress, once we are clear what your particular idea is.

Does the Law make the Internet “dumber” than it is?

Privacy Legislation

Europe

GDPR

United States

CCPA

It will be interesting to observe the consequences of the CCPA, which was designed to enhance the privacy rights of Californians. Although it is commonly thought of as a similar version of the GDPR, it differentiates itself from its European counterpart in several questions and of course, the Act is not uncontroversial ([[http://...][(https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/07/ten-reasons-why-californias-new-data-protection-law-is-unworkable-burdensome-and-possibly-unconstitutional-guest-blog-post.htm)]. With the “Right to Erasure”, the CCPA will contain the Californian interpretation of the RTBF and the law grants affected consumers the right to request deletion of their personal information from any company subject to the CCPA. As its European counterpart, the right does not apply unlimited and there are certain limitations (A list of limitations can be found here: (https://www.dataprotectionreport.com/2018/09/ccpa-extends-right-to-deletion-to-california-residents/). Yet, it can be expected that Californian companies will face similar difficulties as GDPR affected companies, in actually complying with such deletion requests of affected consumers / data subjects. This can pose various operational challenges in actually deleting all personal data of a requestor (just think about complex IT architectures with automated back-up hard drives, cloud storages, etc.).

Judicial Application

Europe

In recent weeks, two noteworthy cases illustrate how the EU is still determining the scope of the RTBF and both cases affect US tech giants.

On September 24, 2019, the ECJ limited the geographical reach of the RTBF. The French privacy regulator fined Google after it rejected a directive to globally remove search results which contain defaming information about a person. The ECJ then held that the internet is a global network without borders, yet numerous third States do not recognize the RTBF and no country should be able to impose rules on citizens of another country. The ECJ concluded that there is no obligation under EU Law for search engines to carry out de-listing requests outside the EU, or as the Court remarkably said: “The right to protection of personal data is not an absolute right” and so the RTBF does not apply outside of the EU (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=218105&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1466914).

Only two weeks later, however, the same Court held on October 3, 2019, that Facebook can be forced to delete content worldwide. This judgement was made after an Austrian politician sued Facebook Ireland Ltd., to remove comments about her, which an Austrian Court determined to be defamatory, on Facebook. The Court held that a EU member state court can order a host provider to remove information which previously was declared to be unlawful worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law. This decision could let objective viewers believe that the EU is nonetheless trying to implement the RTBF as a global regulatory internet standard and it has to be seen, how this decision will heat up the discussion of free speech versus privacy.

USA

A recent case demonstrated why the RTBF does not (yet) work under current US Law. In Yury Mosha v. Yandex Inc., S.D.N.Y.,18 Civ. 5444 (ER) Mosha claimed that the Russian search engine Yandex.ru would defame him and after an unsuccessful trial in Russia, Mosha filed a claim in New York against the US subsidiary of Yandex, Inc. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, based on the immunity of Yandex, Inc. under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230, holding that internet search providers are interactive computer services and as such, may rely on the immunity granted under the CDA. It will be interesting to see if this line of argumentation may be upheld in California in 2020.

Paper Title

-- By EricN - 04 Oct 2019

Section I

Subsection A

Subsub 1

Subsection B

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

Section II

Subsection A

Subsection B

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, EricN
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.