The line is surely at "inaccurate" which is mentioned up-thread and in the case. Neither of your scenarios describe an inaccurate datum, just old (but not outdated)
I was responding to the poster who claimed that this is an "extra-judicial punishment" after the person has "paid the standard debt to society". If someone was convicted in a court of law, the information isn't inaccurate.
Addressing your point, if the newspaper article is inaccurate, why not have the article removed or corrected? Instead, it is the opposite. The man says the articles can stay up. Canadian defamation law is pretty clear. If the article is false, he can sue to have it removed. I'm tending to believe delisting from Google is the man's plan because he can't get the articles removed.
FTA: "The man said outdated and inaccurate information about him in newspaper articles found on the internet was leading to great personal harm, including physical assault, employment discrimination, severe social stigma and persistent fear." and "He wanted the information to be delisted – made unsearchable, unless someone knew the website urls featuring his name."
Hmm is this really about “privacy” then? Seems like privacy would mostly be about things that are accurate. We already have laws about libel and defamation.
Who decides what’s inaccurate or outdated? I think the subject of a negative article may often feel it’s inaccurate even if it’s generally correct.
