EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts
from the which-is-more-important? dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
won't work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
#11.
Luckily for you, free speech doesn't appear to violate the human right to be ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re: Freedom of Speech, Privacy and the ECHR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom of Speech, Privacy and the ECHR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Freedom of Speech, Privacy and the ECHR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
Some countries think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
EU and "Right to Be Forgotten"
Viva la Supprecion!
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU and "Right to Be Forgotten"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EU and "Right to Be Forgotten"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i think
What is stopping you from doing that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: i think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: i think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i think
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A right to be forgotten is inherently stupid and impossible to implement for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for them!
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 chronology ]
Re: Good for them!
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Good for them!
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good for them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]