Is the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Coming to America?

Free-speech concerns abound when users are allowed to erase the Internet.

National Journal
Dustin Volz
May 13, 2014, 6:30 a.m.

Europe’s highest court ruled Tues­day that Google must al­low its users to de­lete links about them­selves that they find em­bar­rass­ing, out­dated, or un­sa­vory — a wide-reach­ing judg­ment that will af­fect oth­er search gi­ants and po­ten­tially so­cial-me­dia sites as well.

The court de­term­ined that European pri­vacy laws grant a per­son the right to have cer­tain links con­tain­ing private in­form­a­tion ex­punged from a search query, even when they are law­ful. Be­cause the search of a per­son’s name dis­plays what can be con­sidered a per­son­al pro­file, that in­form­a­tion should be sub­ject to some per­son­al pri­vacy pro­tec­tions. Google and its brethren, there­fore, hold some re­spons­ib­il­ity for the con­tent they dis­play.

Back­ers of the “right to be for­got­ten” quickly hailed the de­cision. Vivi­ane Red­ing, the European com­mis­sion­er for justice, trum­peted the de­cision on Face­book as “a clear vic­tory for the pro­tec­tion of per­son­al data of Europeans.”

The rul­ing, while sur­pris­ing to some leg­al ob­serv­ers, fol­lows years of bold at­tempts by the Europe Uni­on and oth­er coun­tries, such as Ar­gen­tina, to ush­er in more di­git­al pri­vacy pro­tec­tions, even as the In­ter­net be­comes a place where most people are will­ing to share ever-in­creas­ing amounts of per­son­al data on the web.

So, is the right to be for­got­ten com­ing to Amer­ica?

While lim­ited forms of such a “right” do ex­ist in some states, such a sweep­ing, carte blanche stand­ard is un­likely any­time soon, if a chor­us of free-speech evan­gel­ists are any in­dic­a­tion. Jef­frey Rosen, a law pro­fess­or at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity, took to the Stan­ford Law Re­view in 2012 to call the right to be for­got­ten the “biggest threat to free speech on the In­ter­net in the com­ing dec­ade.”

Rosen’s ar­gu­ment cen­ters on the idea that Amer­ica’s cher­ished free-speech prin­ciples ward against such data de­le­tion, and that the right to be for­got­ten is a veiled form of cen­sor­ship that could al­low for all sorts of ab­uses.

Rosen ex­plains (em­phas­is ad­ded):

In the­ory, the right to be for­got­ten ad­dresses an ur­gent prob­lem in the di­git­al age: it is very hard to es­cape your past on the In­ter­net now that every photo, status up­date, and tweet lives forever in the cloud. But Europeans and Amer­ic­ans have dia­met­ric­ally op­posed ap­proaches to the prob­lem. In Europe, the in­tel­lec­tu­al roots of the right to be for­got­ten can be found in French law, which re­cog­nizes le droit à l’oubli — or the “right of ob­li­vi­on” — a right that al­lows a con­victed crim­in­al who has served his time and been re­hab­il­it­ated to ob­ject to the pub­lic­a­tion of the facts of his con­vic­tion and in­car­cer­a­tion. In Amer­ica, by con­trast, pub­lic­a­tion of someone’s crim­in­al his­tory is pro­tec­ted by the First Amend­ment, lead­ing Wiki­pe­dia to res­ist the ef­forts by two Ger­mans con­victed of mur­der­ing a fam­ous act­or to re­move their crim­in­al his­tory from the act­or’s Wiki­pe­dia page.

Put more plainly, Europe has ad­op­ted form­al rights to pri­vacy, while the U.S. has al­ways been more am­bigu­ous on the is­sue. Our Con­sti­tu­tion lacks any form­al de­clar­a­tion of an in­nate right to pri­vacy, mean­ing such mat­ters are of­ten left to the states.

Rosen and oth­ers ad­di­tion­ally point to the way Amer­ic­an jur­is­pru­dence ap­plies dif­fer­ent pri­vacy stand­ards to private and pub­lic en­tit­ies. Should an elec­ted of­fi­cial prone to vir­al gaffes (the com­par­is­ons are in­fin­ite, but pic­ture an Amer­ic­an ver­sion of Toronto May­or Rob Ford if it helps) be al­lowed to scrub the In­ter­net of com­prom­ising pho­tos from a re­cent night out? Does the pub­lic in­terest in hav­ing ac­cess to in­tim­ate de­tails of that of­fi­cial’s life su­per­sede pri­vacy con­cerns? Celebrit­ies and politi­cians pos­sess looser pri­vacy pro­tec­tions in the U.S., and that nu­ance fur­ther com­plic­ates any right to be for­got­ten rules.

Google and its fel­low tech ti­tans, whose busi­ness mod­els mean they have no in­terest in play­ing cen­sor, are no stranger to pri­vacy chal­lenges. Tues­day’s de­cision by the European Court of Justice in Lux­em­bourg marks just the latest ex­ample of the pro­found leg­al ques­tions the rap­idly ex­pand­ing di­git­al world presents.

Whatever the res­ults, the In­ter­net is still a place where just about any­thing can be found if someone looks hard enough. And that’s true wheth­er the U.S. ad­opts the right-to-be-for­got­ten rules or not.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×