Freedom of speech includes the right to spread the truth about others. The "right" to be forgotten is the right to silence others.
It's something that some people want, obviously, but is the government really the best candidate to enforce it?
What truth am I forcing someone to be silent about if I simply don't want my personal data used for malicious or unwarranted commercial purposes?
If people are spreading lies about you in the US, you can sue them for defamation. Beyond that, silencing someone because what they're saying 'isn't relevant' goes against the US interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
Arguably, we can create exceptions there for corporations (although we should expect a few court cases about it). But the (US) government can't restrict me as an individual from talking about another person's past in private or public spaces.
If one objects to the right to be forgotten altogether, then one objects to the right to demand that even false and libelous content can be removed from the internet. You can sue for defamation, but you can't prevent the publication and spread of defaming content.
>But the (US) government can't restrict me as an individual from talking about another person's past in private or public spaces.
Yes but the right to be forgotten doesn't apply to private or public spaces, it applies to data on the internet, or am I mistaken?
The government doesn't ban firearms, automobiles, knives, etc. because they have potential to cause harm, so why would the government break freedoms to censor information on the basis that it has potential to cause harm?
Defamation (libel/slander) is not a crime and is not censurable as such, but you can be sued for the damages (harm) that it causes. You are free within your first amendment rights to leave that defaming information up after it is proven to cause harm in civil court, but then you are still liable for the damage it continues to cause.
IANAL, but this is a weird interpretation to me. I'm not sure how to describe a court fining you for publishing information other than, "compelling you to remove that information."
I dunno, this really doesn't line up with my understanding of libel laws.
Of course, bear in mind that the Right to Be Forgotten has very, very little to do with libel. If we were just talking about libel, we'd use existing libel laws. The fact that Right to Be Forgotten exists in addition to libel laws should be enough to show that it is targeting different information.
I dislike that people bring up libel when debating Right to Be Forgotten, because I view libel laws as largely irrelevant to the debate. It's just trope #3 again[0].
[0]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
> If one objects to the right to be forgotten altogether, then one objects to the right to demand that even false and libelous content can be removed from the internet. You can sue for defamation, but you can't prevent the publication and spread of defaming content.
We have exceptions to the 1st Amendment for defamation and copyright. They are very, very narrow exceptions.
The Right to Be Forgotten works in Europe largely because Europe has different standards than the US on what Freedom of Speech means. When a US citizen and a European citizen talk about Freedom of Speech, they're not necessarily talking about the same thing.
That's not to say Europe's take is necessarily wrong. But it is to say that Andrew Yang is running to be the president of the US, so the European interpretation of Free Speech isn't relevant to his platform proposals.
> the right to be forgotten doesn't apply to private or public spaces, it applies to data on the internet
Public/private spaces don't go away on the Internet.
A corporation or private actor can delete content from a forum/website they control for any reason. They have a Freedom of Association. But the US government may not compel them to do so, except where that content falls into extremely narrow exceptions that have been carved out over decades of legal debate.
It feels like you’re talking purely philosophically and ignoring the nuance of our legal system.
SCOTUS, including right wing literalists, have held that Constitutional rights are not iron clad in all contexts.
Main Street seems to believe the first amendment is very broad, but then there’s the whole shouting fire in a crowded room. Instigating acts of violence and threats, etc.
Freedom from and freedom to are distinct concepts in our legal system.
I fail to see the issue you bring up.