Hacker News Reader

Comment by Crontab | Hacker News Reader

I find this result disgusting.

Can you elaborate?

I would say that in the US we mostly consider right to free speech more important than the right to be forgotten.

A judge heard the case for two individuals. That's a pretty fair way to do it. Americans also believe in the rule of law, versus the rule of the powerful.

The reason we have the freedom of speech in the US is because its the powerful that abuse the ability to censor.

Which powerful entity do you mean? The people who want things unlisted, or Google?

The government.

I don't understand your point. I read this as similar to libel or truth in advertising laws.

Keep in mind the idea of libel and slander exists in the US. I’d see this court decision as an extension of those ideas (materially true information that can be deindexed by the subject).

I don't think anyone has an issue with libel and slander laws. Those are about known false information.

Censoring an inconvenient truth seems wrong to me. The whole point of freedom of speech is because someone didn't like the speech.

The best part of law and society is that we get to collectively decide if freedom of speech should be absolute. In this case, the judicial branch says no.

Yep. A society with true freedom lets those like this unnamed person and yourself who want to curtail and destroy it speak anyway. Freedom is never a static thing and the fight against censors is constant.

It's sad to see this battle lost but I hope for Europe's sake they figure out it was the wrong move after this becomes abused by the rich and powerful.

True freedom does not exist. It always has been, and always will be, a compromise between participants in society.

I think that the Google is stepping into the realm of government because they might feel that government services are lacking in this realm. These records and controls for what remains available would be better served in a government setting than a private corporation one.

Much of Right To Be Forgotten exists because of false information: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/03/598239092/the-man-who-spent-1...

Google would not be removing false results without RTBF or someone being able to afford a very expensive lawyer. RTBF means anyone can actually have a chance at getting false information removed.

But the information in the case being discussed is factually true, and undisputed. Why argue like its not literally the case here?

My point is that the law is important even for the cases that the parent agrees with. There are clear categorizes for what qualifies for RTBF and they were examined well in this case. The judge rightfully determined that one person has likely changed and shouldn't be burdened by their history, but that another should.

This isn't just a blanket "you can erase things you don't like in the news about you" that some people have made it out to be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com