EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google

Post by darkarmani » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 6:10 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #10

peterkelly wrote: post #6

This law is a very serious threat to freedom of the press, and freedom of speech in general. While it was (allegedly) introduced for reasons that seem quite reasonable - avoiding unfair reputations in search results - it could quite validly be termed as "Right to censor criticism or true facts about yourself". Let's take high-profile person X who is found guilty of some serious crime, like sex offences. They have the…

There's no threat at all to either freedom of speech or the press. If the guardian publishes something, it will have its day in the sun. It just will eventually get removed, years afterwards. No press freedoms impinged, years after you've had your expressive speech. Whatever freedom that is, freedom of historical reports?, it's nothing to do with speech or press. If you want to re-report the information, you could, b…

Post by kjksf » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 6:17 PM UTC

mccr8 wrote: post #17

munificent wrote: post #15

This article is pretty terrible. I think it's great that it's drawing attention to the problem, but it spends most of the time rallying an angry mob and pointing the pitchforks in the wrong direction: > Guardian articles have been hidden by Google > Editorial decisions belong with them, not Google > But such editorial calls surely belong with publishers, not Google. Google has done absolutely nothing wrong here. It i…

Put down your Google pitchfork. The article is clearly not placing the blame on Google: "As for Google itself, it's clearly a reluctant participant in what effectively amounts to censorship." The second paragraph says this is the result of a court ruling. If the most concerning thing to you about this article is that it doesn't spend enough time exonerating Google for their role in this, then I don't know what to tel…

Post by lotsofmangos » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 6:24 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #10

peterkelly wrote: post #6

This law is a very serious threat to freedom of the press, and freedom of speech in general. While it was (allegedly) introduced for reasons that seem quite reasonable - avoiding unfair reputations in search results - it could quite validly be termed as "Right to censor criticism or true facts about yourself". Let's take high-profile person X who is found guilty of some serious crime, like sex offences. They have the…

There's no threat at all to either freedom of speech or the press. If the guardian publishes something, it will have its day in the sun. It just will eventually get removed, years afterwards. No press freedoms impinged, years after you've had your expressive speech. Whatever freedom that is, freedom of historical reports?, it's nothing to do with speech or press. If you want to re-report the information, you could, b…

Post by voyou » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 6:36 PM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #10

peterkelly wrote: post #6

This law is a very serious threat to freedom of the press, and freedom of speech in general. While it was (allegedly) introduced for reasons that seem quite reasonable - avoiding unfair reputations in search results - it could quite validly be termed as "Right to censor criticism or true facts about yourself". Let's take high-profile person X who is found guilty of some serious crime, like sex offences. They have the…

There's no threat at all to either freedom of speech or the press. If the guardian publishes something, it will have its day in the sun. It just will eventually get removed, years afterwards. No press freedoms impinged, years after you've had your expressive speech. Whatever freedom that is, freedom of historical reports?, it's nothing to do with speech or press. If you want to re-report the information, you could, b…

Post by ndkline » Wed, Jul 02, 2014, 6:36 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #7

[deleted]