This is different from what the article (and ruling) are talking about. This is not about going in people's memory and deleting them, neurolizer style. It's not even talking to get the page down. It's talking about stopping to smear that person's name by advertising the publication.
> There is no parallel in history
Yes there is. If someone smears your name on billboards you're allowed to sue. Yesterday I read a story of a comedian who was getting YouTube videos about his plagiarism taken down. If you are publish stuff about a corporation that is bad for them, you might be sued to take it down. Plenty of examples.
>If someone smears your name on billboards you're allowed to sue
Sure, but you're not going to get anywhere with your suit unless it's defamation. "Smearing" your name with something you actually did is (and or should be) protected speech. The article does not describe the confidential plaintiff winning a defamation lawsuit and forcing the material to be taken down from its source. And there would need to be no new "right to be forgotten" for that, that's just bog standard century old defamation law. All search engines and regular sites for that matter, anything that hosts 3rd party generated content, has (and is required to have by law) contacts and processes in place for taking down actual illegal material. The entire debate around this new thing is getting stuff you merely don't like but is entirely true hidden away.
>Yesterday I read a story of a comedian who was getting YouTube videos about his plagiarism taken down
Which sounds like horrible to me and exactly the problem! If he plagiarized, why should he be able to get those videos taken down?
Feel free to chat with a lawyer, but truth can be defamatory, it's in the intent (or carelessness) to cause harm to another that it's decided to be defamation or not.
>Feel free to chat with a lawyer, but truth can be defamatory
Not in the US it can't, truth is an absolute defense against defamation. And while sure, absolutely lots of countries don't respect free speech or support robust criticism very well, but I think those that don't are wrong. Hence why I included "(and or should be)", the ones that don't still should IMO.
This is different from what the article (and ruling) are talking about. This is not about going in people's memory and deleting them, neurolizer style. It's not even talking to get the page down. It's talking about stopping to smear that person's name by advertising the publication.
> There is no parallel in history
Yes there is. If someone smears your name on billboards you're allowed to sue. Yesterday I read a story of a comedian who was getting YouTube videos about his plagiarism taken down. If you are publish stuff about a corporation that is bad for them, you might be sued to take it down. Plenty of examples.