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 »
AT LEAST NOT YET
Paul Ryan Can’t Get Behind Trump
8 hours ago
THE LATEST

Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Preet Bharara Learned at the Foot of Chuck Schumer
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."

Source:
DRUG OFFENDERS
Obama Commutes the Sentences of 58 Prisoners
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.

STAFF PICKS
Trump Roadmapped His Candidacy in 2000
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"

Source:
‘NO MORAL OR ETHICAL GROUNDING’
Sen. Murphy: Trump Shouldn’t Get Classified Briefigs
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
×