Google, the Right to be Forgotten, and Digital Freedom

In this blog post, I’m going to attempt to address a complex issue. I do so with some apprehension, but I’m giving it a shot anyway, because I’m here to raise questions and a bit of debate. So I figure that even if I receive a chorus of disagreements and corrections, it will be a useful and educational experience.

  

Google recently got a lot of attention when it informed publications that some of their stories had been removed from its search results after it had received “right to be forgotten” requests. Publications like The Guardian newspaper in the UK protested bitterly, and Google restored some links.

For those that haven’t been following this, the situation arose from a European Court of Justice ruling. A Spanish man brought a case against Google. He demanded that a link be removed to an article in a newspaper published in 1998, about an auction for his foreclosed home, because he subsequently cleared his debt. Notably, there was no argument about the legality and accuracy of the story. The ruling focused on the effect its continued visibility in search results was having on the gentleman’s life and work. The court ruled that search engines like Google are responsible for the content to which they link and so they were required to comply with EU data privacy laws.

Already Google has received tens of thousands of requests to have information removed. However opponents feel that this is censorship by the back door.

So who was right? Was Google right to remove search results so quickly, or were its critics right for requesting their reinstatement?

It seems to me that Google got caught between a rock and a hard place. When European law comes knocking, it’s difficult to ignore it. Indeed, it would look arrogant to do so, and it could be potentially costly, both reputationally and literally for the company. So, from the point of view of protecting the company’s reputation, taking swift action seemed to be a sensible thing to do.

Nevertheless, this didn’t take into account that the object of this action would be the very people that would be its biggest critics, namely the media. Google put itself in danger of aiding censorship.  Plus, it didn’t seem to tackle the fact that EU jurisdiction is just that – Europe only – and its laws and guidelines don’t necessarily apply in other jurisdictions. Media freedom in the UK and the USA for example is arguably greater than in Continental Europe, and the media in these nations fiercely resists legislative regulation and restrictions of its freedom to publish.

Furthermore, much of what Google does is simply to list information that is published elsewhere. To de-list it would be to effectively deny its existence. That seems somewhat sinister and Orwellian.

 

So in a nicely fudged outcome, equilibrium appears to have been maintained. Google was responsive both to the European Court and its critics.  The court itself has emerged as a rather blunt object, whose judgement could need sharpening, but I’ll leave that argument for the legal experts.