EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts

from the which-is-more-important? dept

Fri, Nov 5th 2010 7:39pm — Mike Masnick

As a bunch of folks have sent in, there's a proposal making the rounds in the EU for a "right to be forgotten," which would require websites to delete all information about a person at their request. We've actually seen something like this in the past, in Germany, where last year we noted that a convicted German murderer, was using such a law to demand details of his conviction be removed from various websites. It's not difficult to recognize how problematic this concept can be. As Adam Thierer notes, a "right to be forgotten," is a clear restriction on free speech.

Now, some might claim that this is a point where free speech and privacy rights clash, but I'm not sure I actually agree with that. In fact, I'd argue that a "right to be forgotten" is not really a "privacy" right in the first place. A privacy right should only concern information that is actually private. What a "right to be forgotten" does is try to take information that is, by default, public information, and pretend that it's private. That's a very different situation, and one that clearly conflicts with free speech concepts.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: europe, free speech, privacy, right to forget

54 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2010 @ 9:12pm

Another incoming batch of clueless people inadvertently calling the entire world's attention to something they're clumsily trying to cover up, eh?
These people can't make fools of themselves fast enough; they've got to have legislation added so they can expedite the process. What a farce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2010 @ 9:42pm

The internet does not forget. And that is the best reason to be an AC that I can think of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 5 Nov 2010 @ 9:50pm

won't work
gov't can selectively ignore this, so this is pretty much unbalanced in concept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sinsi (profile), 5 Nov 2010 @ 9:56pm

Good luck trying to find all of the websites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2010 @ 9:59pm

The US is the only country that has free speech. No other country does. No other countries want free speech as it violates human rights - such as your privacy example, and allows defamation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2010 @ 10:08pm

Re:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union#CHAPTER_II._FREEDO MS

#11.

Luckily for you, free speech doesn't appear to violate the human right to be ignorant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2010 @ 10:24pm

Re: Re:
And there's no freedom of speech in there - freedom of expression is completely different. There's also "protection of personal data" in the charter. Also the EU charter does not apply to the UK. You're the ignorant one not me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2010 @ 10:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
"And there's no freedom of speech in there - freedom of expression is completely different."

Uhh, no.

"There's also "protection of personal data" in the charter."

And...this has what to do with your claim that "no other countries want free speech?" Oh right, nothing.

"Also the EU charter does not apply to the UK. You're the ignorant one not me."

Oh look, more non sequitor. It is fun watching you squirm in an attempt to avoid the fact that you posted a comment with no basis in reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2010 @ 10:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
And while we're at it...

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19
and
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law /ccpr.htm#art19

Then we have...

http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/brazil/constitution/constitution02.php

http://en.wikiso urce.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India/Part_III#Article_19_.7BProtection_of_certain_rights_regarding_fr eedom_of_speech.2C_etc..7D

http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm#16
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2010 @ 11:52pm

All of this is total twat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duke (profile), 6 Nov 2010 @ 12:40am

Freedom of Speech, Privacy and the ECHR
The closest thing to "freedom of speech" that exists in the EU is article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which includes the "right to freedom of expression". This is subtly distinct from freedom of speech (which is a very USian idea). The article goes on to say that the exercise of this right can be restricted for various reasons including "the protection of health or morals" and "the protection of the reputation or rights of others" (among others).

In terms of privacy, there's no specific right to privacy in the ECHR, but the subtly different "right to respect for ... private and family life, home and correspondence" including in Article 8. Again, this can be waived for the same reasons as above. These two articles often get balanced against each other, for obvious reasons. It also isn't hard to see how this "right to be forgotten" could be covered under (or related to) this right to respect of private life etc., when it wouldn't necessarily be covered by a simple right to privacy.

From what I have observed the US holds the idea of freedom of speech much higher than it is held elsewhere, particularly in Europe, where other "rights" (including privacy, protection from defamation and prevention of hate-speech) often take precedence. While in some case this can go too far (such as the Twitter Joke Trial), it is part of how European culture seems to operate. As such, while there is an obvious conflict with freedom of speech in this proposal, it may not be quite as noteworthy as it may seem from an American perspective.

With regard to the ECHR and the UK, (iirc) the UK was the first country to sign the convention (and the first country to be taken to Court by it) and it has been binding on the state since 1953. In 2000 this was strengthened through the Human Rights Act 1998 which made it easier for cases etc. to be considered with regard to the convention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2010 @ 4:16am

Re: Freedom of Speech, Privacy and the ECHR
Thanks Duke, as I was saying before Freedom of expression is totally different to freedom of speech. And AC seems to think they're the same
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 6 Nov 2010 @ 7:48am

Re:
Is it still defamation when it is true?
Some countries think so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tamara, 6 Nov 2010 @ 7:55am

Re: Re:
Defamation when it's true only applies when the person can't prove it's true. The US is the only country in the world that says something that can't be proven isn't defamation under their "free speech" banner. It doesn't apply under "freedom of expression"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2010 @ 8:26am

Re: Re: Freedom of Speech, Privacy and the ECHR
Because in America we don't pander to whiny babies who get their feelings hurt every time someone says something they don't like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DanVan (profile), 6 Nov 2010 @ 11:57am

I don't have much of a problem with this thought as some stuff put online is disgusting, not true, and can in fact hurt people for jobs and their lives in general

I am not someone who wants everything and anything to just be allowed

I have something about me put online that DOES come up with a google search and DID hurt me looking for a job as someone asked me about it. I have done my best getting it deleted but no luck so far. BTW, it is not even remotely true
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 6 Nov 2010 @ 12:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
And upon whom lies the burden of proof?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 6 Nov 2010 @ 12:22pm

Re:
The same can be said of the several credit bureaus and they do not always delete stuff just because you can prove it is false. There are mechanisms in place for one to post a response. Maybe the intarwebs should do something like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2010 @ 1:37pm

I wonder if any politicians have proposed a right to be remembered law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2010 @ 3:25pm

The US is also the country with most censorship in the west.
For example on public television swearing is beeped out.

What use is freedom of speech if you get sensored anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2010 @ 4:07pm

I think laws are unnecessary for that.

Besides this is not how the network works, every node that has that information would need to be wiped clean, are those people willing to go after every single instance of some information?

That is just ridiculous, as no government in the world or company or person have the man power, financial resources or power to do so.

Brazil I know have a law like that and it doesn't work, they also have inside the constitution the words "It is forbidden to be anonymous" LoL no I'm not joking. Now look at how those things work there and you will see why is not a good idea, those type of laws are used to curb free speech and threaten political, administrative transparency everywhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2010 @ 4:41pm

Re:
You mean to use the word censor, not sensor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 6 Nov 2010 @ 6:10pm

Re: Re:
Sensored is what the TSA does
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Millooonare TeeParty Winnner, 7 Nov 2010 @ 1:03am

Re: Re: Re:
Welcome to Techdirt. Please take a moment to view the following video and tell us how it applies in the context of this very community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2-gHbSh2AY

And Mike, can you please tell Stephen Spielberg that lightning has just stuck your brain?

Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Creplach, 7 Nov 2010 @ 1:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Get a half-way decent Darth mask, you cunt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 7 Nov 2010 @ 1:46am

EU and "Right to Be Forgotten"
If corporations are people, then I see this as the perfect tool to force off the internet any investigative journalism that reflects poorly on said corporation.

Viva la Supprecion!

CBMHB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2010 @ 3:21am

And there you go...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2010 @ 3:33am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65PiKsNhCsc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2010 @ 4:34am

I want to be forgotten. I just want to be free. Just leave me the frak alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2010 @ 4:38am

Re:
In other words sucker. We get to call a spade a spade, and we get to do it out loud. We get to call our police assholes. Do you? We get to call you an asshole. Can you publish that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Malcolm Tucker, 7 Nov 2010 @ 6:25am

Mike,

I try to follow you, but often-times you really piss me off. Can you tell me how much fucking shit is on the menu, and what flavor is it?

Thank you buddy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 7 Nov 2010 @ 6:47am

Re: EU and "Right to Be Forgotten"
Are corps considered people in the EU also ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 7 Nov 2010 @ 6:49am

Re:
Heh - wut?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bengie, 7 Nov 2010 @ 11:29am

Re:
"The US is the only country that has free speech. No other country does. No other countries want free speech as it violates human rights - such as your privacy example, and allows defamation."

Defamation is illegal. Might want to get your facts strait.

Facts an opinions are covered in free speech, but defamation is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryan Diederich, 7 Nov 2010 @ 5:49pm

i think
I think that this should become law, but not in the way that it is stated. For example, I should not be able to have sites take down court information about myself. Thats not right.

But, if I am a user of a certain forum or whatever, I should be able to ask them to remove anything I have posted. It could be a matter of personal security, a matter of privacy, or whatever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas Guthrie, 7 Nov 2010 @ 6:28pm

This kinda thing should only apply to minors and people with name suppression. On a case by case basis and VERY rarely.

A right to be forgotten is inherently stupid and impossible to implement for everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2010 @ 6:52pm

Re: EU and "Right to Be Forgotten"
In the EU, natural and legal persons (companies) have different rights. This applies to natural ones.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2010 @ 6:57pm

Mike,

Your stance on copyright is mostly spot-on. Yet, you continue to fail to understand that the USA is not the EU. We value free speech as one right amongst many, not as the one that trumps all. And even if you can't enforce it 100% of the time, having such a law is better than not having it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 7 Nov 2010 @ 7:30pm

Re: i think
"I should be able to ask them to remove anything I have posted."

What is stopping you from doing that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Nov 2010 @ 11:26pm

Re:
Yet, you continue to fail to understand that the USA is not the EU.

I understand that plenty.

We value free speech as one right amongst many, not as the one that trumps all

I understand that as well. I just think it's wrong. Sorry.

And even if you can't enforce it 100% of the time, having such a law is better than not having it...

A right to forget? Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jaws4theRevenge (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 3:00am

Re: Re: Re: Freedom of Speech, Privacy and the ECHR
Awesome troll. 9/10
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RCasha (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 3:11am

Good for them!
I fully agree with what they're doing (or at least the principle of it - I haven't examined the details).

With more and more employers, marketers and other people scouring the web to extract personal information about you, this right is an important one. If I decide that I no longer want (say) a facebook page, or myspace, or whatever, I should have every right to delete my account. Same with my Google account, my flickr page and so on.

Maybe my social network site has had a number of security breaches in recent times, or maybe I just don't want my employer to see the photos of my wild party days. Several such sites make it extremely difficult to remove your own page, since they know that the presence of the page might encourage some to "reactivate" their page some time in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeGuy (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 4:35am

Re:
Why can't you explain your situation when asked about whatever this is? Either it's true or false. If it's false, no problem. If it's true, it's either still true or it was only true in the past. If it was only true in the past, depending on what it was and how past, no problem. If it's true now... it's either pertinent or not. If it's not pertinent, no problem. But if it IS pertinent, then you're asking other people to hide your dirty laundry. If it IS pertinent, then your prospective employer SHOULD know about it, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeGuy (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 4:38am

Re: Re: i think
Legal recourse if the site refuses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeGuy (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 4:41am

Re:
And even if you can't enforce it 100% of the time, having such a law is better than not having it...

There's evidence that the opposite is true, that having a poorly-enforced law can actually be worse than having no law at all, both because of the effects on the specific issue in question and the side effects on "respect for the law" in general.

Nevermind unintended consequences, potential abuses, etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeGuy (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 4:48am

Re: Good for them!
Maybe someone quotes you saying something foolish or embarrassing. Maybe you just changed your mind. Maybe you just don't like what they said in reply. Should you have legal force to have their comment removed?

Maybe you show up in the background of some's picture doing something foolish/dangerous/embarrassing. Should you have legal force to have their picture taken down?

If you answered yes to either of those, now envision government or corporate abuses that could stem from this. Even if the "right" only applies to natural persons (as opposed to legal ones, like corporations), corps and governments can pay people to exercize this right on their behalf. Don't like an article, make sure someone quoted by it changes their mind and wants their comments forgotten. Don't like a pictures from protest? Make sure someone in the background decides they don't want to be associated with the event.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Idobek (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 5:52am

Re:
As Mike says "we" are wrong, absolutely and entirely. Freedom of expression should trump everything; some of "us" still understand this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jc (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 6:10am

Re: Re: Good for them!
You can't ask people who are in favor of this law to understand it's consequences.

After all, the primary purpose of this law is to allow those same people to avoid consequences they didn't think about in the past.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 6:36am

Re:
No other countries want free speech as it violates human rights

This is one of the most basic natural human rights...the ability to open your mouth and make whatever noise you want. Now, there may be consequences for what you say but nobody can stop you from saying it in the first place...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2010 @ 7:57am

Re:
(perhaps a right to be remembered for attempts to pass dumb laws?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeGuy (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 9:08am

Re: Re: Re: Good for them!
To be fair, I don't think that's entirely fair. Some people have said or done things in the past that they'd like to distance themselves from, and it's not always about getting drunk at a party. That having been said, though I can understand the sentiment, I'm against government-mandated amnesia, and I think some things need to be remembered no matter how many people wish it could be forgotten. The burden of the past is, I think, an acceptible cost to avoid the side effects of such a law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2010 @ 2:06pm

Re: i think
"But, if I am a user of a certain forum or whatever, I should be able to ask them to remove anything I have posted. It could be a matter of personal security, a matter of privacy, or whatever."

Why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 8 Nov 2010 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re: Re: i think
Why should they be compelled to remove content you decided to post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2011 @ 3:27am

This will get legs if not actioned asa it is already an established part of French law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]