EU's Top Court Endorses Censorship of Embarrassing Facts

Reason Foundation's picture
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Since the European Union's top court endorsed "the right to be forgotten" last week, Google has

received more than 1,000 requests to remove links to embarrassing information from its search results. BBC News reports that the complainants have included a suspended university lecturer, an actor who had an affair with a teenager, a politician irked by an article about his behavior while in office, and "a man who tried to kill his family."

RELATED ARTICLES

MORE ARTICLES BY

According to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), national data protection agencies and judges are supposed to weigh the competing interests in each of these cases and decide which will prevail: the right to be forgotten or the right to know. This misbegotten

decision illustrates the threat to freedom of speech posed by an amorphous, free-floating right to privacy, unmoored from contracts, property rights, or constitutional restrictions on government action.

The case involved a Spanish lawyer, Mario Costeja Gonzalez, who was angry that results from Google searches on his name included links to newspaper pages from 1998 that carried an announcement of a real estate auction aimed at paying off his social security debts. Since his tax problem had been resolved years before, he felt that making information about it available online was unfair and misleading.

In 2010 Costeja Gonzalez filed a complaint with the Spanish Data Protection Agency, asking that the newspaper, La Vanguardia, be required to remove or expurgate the pages and that Google be required to stop listing them in search results. The agency rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia, since publishing the auction announcement was legally justified, but ordered Google to comply with Costeja Gonzalez's request. 

Google appealed to Spain's National High Court, which sought guidance from the ECJ. Applying a 1995 E.U. directive aimed at protecting the "right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data," the court said search engine operators can be forced to expunge references to accurate, legally published information that people would prefer to keep hidden, even when the information remains online.

The ECJ focused on search engines, as opposed to original publishers, because they engage in "data processing" and because they make unfavorable facts more accessible. But the logic of the ruling covers any sort of aggregation, including newspapers' archives of their own content, while the logic of the alleged right to be forgotten applies to any publicly available "personal data" (defined as "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person"), no matter where it is stored or how it is presented.

The standard for issuing a censorship order is whether the information is "inadequate," "irrelevant or no longer relevant," or "excessive" in light of the purposes for which it was collected. Although there might be "particular reasons" why information that people seek to suppress should remain available, the ECJ said, the collection of personal data affects "fundamental rights" that "override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information."

The implications are sweeping. For any given political candidate, public official, job applicant, potential business partner, doctor, date, future son-in-law, or new neighbor, there will be many facts available online that are arguably relevant to important public or private interests—which means they are also arguably irrelevant.

Then there is the question of whether the interest at stake, whether it's evaluating a politician or avoiding yet another bad relationship, outweighs the research subject's interest in concealing facts that reflect poorly on him. This is a legal morass that invites arbitrary line drawing.

In the United States, the "right to be forgotten" would be a non-starter, since our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, a principle that is incompatible with government decrees to send inconvenient truths down the memory hole. Anyone concerned about fundamental rights should think twice before letting the state decide what people need to know.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette|5.21.14 @ 7:08AM|#

    In 2010 Costeja Gonzalez filed a complaint with the Spanish Data Protection Agency, asking that the newspaper, La Vanguardia, be required to remove or expurgate the pages and that Google be required to stop listing them in search results.

    Mission accomplished. No one will find out about Gonzalez's financial failures now.

    So, sure, Google will comply, since they no doubt have a physical presence in Europe, but what about other search engines without any such tie? Will DuckDuckGo give a crap about this? And if so, wouldn't European searchers just be trained eventually to "google" someone using a smaller name search engine?

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Doctor Whom|5.21.14 @ 8:52AM|#

    Streisand effect? What's that?

    If Costeja González genuinely wanted to be forgotten, he would have kept his gob shut. The "right to be forgotten" is actually the right to have inconvenient facts hidden.

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Ted S.|5.21.14 @ 7:36AM|#

    In 2010 Costeja Gonzalez filed a complaint with the Spanish Data Protection Agency, asking that the newspaper, La Vanguardia, be required to remove or expurgate the pages and that Google be required to stop listing them in search results. The agency rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia, since publishing the auction announcement was legally justified, but ordered Google to comply with Costeja Gonzalez's request.

    Google has a big pile of money the EU could get at in fines; La Vanguardia presumably doesn't. And Google is American, allowing the EU to get one of their acceptable bigotries on.

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Rich|5.21.14 @ 7:56AM|#

    The standard for issuing a censorship order is whether the information is "inadequate," "irrelevant or no longer relevant," or "excessive" in light of the purposes for which it was collected.

    Well, that's certainly clear enough, as far as it goes. But they left out the crucial criteria of "frivolous" and "possibly offensive".

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Pro Libertate|5.21.14 @ 8:04AM|#

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Almanian!|5.21.14 @ 8:17AM|#

    *BOOM*

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Pro Libertate|5.21.14 @ 8:36AM|#

    Mr Almanian! has forgotten the first lesson in How Not to be Seen.

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Heroic Mulatto|5.21.14 @ 8:05AM|#

    For his lawyer, Joaquín Muñoz, a key point in Tuesday's ruling was the recognition that search engines are involved in processing data. "When you search for something in Google, they don't scour the entire internet for you and then give you a result. They've stored links, organised them and they show them based on a criteria they've decided upon." This act of processing information confers upon them responsibilities in certain cases, he added. ...

    It's one of the many questions about the ruling to be answered in the days to come, said Muñoz. But on Tuesday he was content to bask in the idea that Abanlex, his tiny law firm based in Madrid, had taken on Google and won. "The resources Google has at their disposal aren't like those of any other citizens."

    I've heard that Joaquín Muñoz and Mario Costeja Gonzalez have,

    allegedly, from time to time gone down to the pastures of Spain to engage in sexual intercourse with several ovine creatures. As of now, they have not provided evidence to dispute this allegation, as such, it is entirely proper to speculate as to the truth of these allegations.

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Rich|5.21.14 @ 8:11AM|#

    Indeed, this allegation is one of many facts available online that are arguably relevant to important public or private interests.

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Almanian!|5.21.14 @ 8:18AM|#

    Yo, fuck tha EU

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Rich|5.21.14 @ 8:21AM|#

    For his lawyer, Joaquín Muñoz, a key point in Tuesday's ruling was the recognition that search engines are involved in processing data.

    "Ah, HA!!"

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • DJF|5.21.14 @ 8:28AM|#

    Can I use this right to have the EU forget about me?

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • The Late P Brooks|5.21.14 @ 8:46AM|#

    I wonder if this is in any way related to American AGs aggressively extorting large settlements from European banks.

    Maybe we're on the verge of a huge new form of trade war. That would be nice.

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

  • Bee Tagger|5.21.14 @ 8:48AM|#

    This will all be moot when the NSA starts their own google.

    reply to this

    log in or register to reply

Leave a Comment

* COMMENT:

You must have an account and be logged in to comment.
Click here to register, or here to login if you already have an account
News Source : EU's Top Court Endorses Censorship of Embarrassing Facts
Copy this html code to your website/blog to embed this press release.