The right to be forgotten allows individuals to request that certain personal information about themselves be removed from internet search results or records. Specifically, it gives people the ability to have embarrassing, outdated, or irrelevant information deleted so that others cannot access it through search engines. The right developed in the EU through legislation and a 2014 court ruling requiring Google to comply with removal requests. However, critics argue it could infringe on freedom of speech and expression in other jurisdictions like the US.

1. right to be forgotten
The right to be forgotten "reflects the claim of an individual to have certain data deleted so
that third persons can no longer trace them."1 It has been defined as "the right to silence
on past events in life that are no longer occurring."2 The right to be forgotten leads to
allowing individuals to have information, videos or photographs about themselves
deleted from certain internet records so that they cannot be found by search engines.3
As of 2014 there are few protections against the harm that incidents such as revenge
porn sharing, or pictures uploaded due to poor judgement, can do.4
The right to be forgotten is distinct from the right to privacy, due to the distinction that the
right to privacy constitutes information that is not publicly known, whereas the right to
be forgotten involves removing information that was publicly known at a certain time
and not allowing third parties to access the information.5 Limitations of application in a
jurisdiction include the inability to require removal of information held by companies
outside the jurisdiction. There is no global framework to allow individuals control over
their online image.
In Article 12 of the Directive 95/46/EC the EU gave a legal base to internet protection for
individuals.6 In 2012 the European Commission disclosed a draft European Data
1 Mantelero, Alessandro (2013). "The EU Proposal for a General Data
Protection Regulation and the roots of the 'right to be
forgotten'". Computer Law & Security Review 29 (3): 229–
235. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2013.03.010;
2 Pino, G. (2000). “The right to personal identity in Italian private law: Constitutional interpretation and
judge-made rights”. In: M. Van Hoecke; F. Ost (eds.). The harmonization of private law in Europe (pp.
225-237). Oxford: Hart Publishing. p. 237.
3 Weber, Rolf H. "The right to be forgotten." More than a Pandora's Box 2 (2011)
4 Hill, Kashmir (July 6, 2011). "Revenge Porn With A Facebook Twist". Forbes. Retrieved 2014-08-09.
5 Crovitz, L. Gordon (2010-11-15). "Crovitz: Forget any 'Right to Be Forgotten' - WSJ". Online.wsj.com.
Retrieved 2014-08-09.
6 Mantelero, Alessandro (2013). "The EU Proposal for a General Data
Protection Regulation and the roots of the 'right to be
forgotten'". Computer Law & Security Review 29 (3): 229–
235. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2013.03.010

2. Protection Regulation to supersede the directive, which includes specific protection in
the right to be forgotten in Article 17.7
In May 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled against Google in Costeja, a case brought
by a Spanish man, Mario Costeja González, who requested the removal of a link to a
digitized 1998 article in La Vanguardia newspaper about an auction for his foreclosed
home, for a debt that he had subsequently paid. He initially attempted to have the
article removed by complaining to the Spanish Data Protection Agency, which rejected
the claim on the grounds that it was lawful and accurate, but accepted a complaint
against Google and asked Google to remove the results. Google sued in the Spanish
Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) which referred a series of questions to the
European Court of Justice. The court ruled in Costeja that search engines are
responsible for the content they point to and thus, Google was required to comply with
EU data privacy laws. It began compliance on 30 May 2014 during which it received
12,000 requests to have personal details removed from its search engine.
On October 27, 2009, lawyers for Wolfgang Werlé who was convicted for murdering Walter
Sedlmayr sent the Wikimedia Foundation a cease and desist letter requesting that
Werlé's name be removed from the English language Wikipedia article Walter
Sedlmayr, citing a 1973 Federal Constitutional Court decision that allows the
suppression of a criminal's name in news accounts once he is released from custody. In
Germany, the law seeks to protect the name and likenesses of private persons from
unwanted publicity. On January 18, 2008, a court in Hamburg supported the personality
rights of Werlé, which under German law includes removing his name from archive
coverage of the case.
The right to be forgotten can be seen in case law, specifically in Melvin v. Reid, and in Sidis
v. FR Publishing Corp.8
In Melvin v. Reid, an ex-prostitute was charged with murder and then acquitted; she
subsequently tried to assume a quiet and anonymous place in society. However, the
1925 film The Red Kimona revealed her history, and she sued the producer.910 The
7 European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and On the Free Movement of
Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation). 2012/0011 (COD). Article 17. Right to be forgotten and
To Erasure
8 Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal.App. 285, 297 P. 91 (1931); Sidis v F-R Publishing Corporation 311 U.S. 711 61
S. Ct. 393 85 L. Ed. 462 1940 U.S.
9 Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal.App. 285, 297 P. 91 (1931)

3. court reasoned that "any person living a life of rectitude has that right to happiness
which includes a freedom from unnecessary attacks on his character, social standing or
reputation."11
In Sidis v. FR Publishing Corp. the plaintiff was William James Sidis, a former child prodigy
who wished to spend his adult life quietly, without recognition; however, this was
disrupted by an article in The New Yorker.12 The court held here that there were limits
to the right to control one's life and facts about oneself, and held that there is social
value in published facts, and that a person cannot ignore their celebrity status merely
because they want to.13
There is opposition to further recognition of the right to be forgotten in the United States as
commentators argue that it will contravene the right to freedom of speech and freedom
of expression, or will constitute censorship, thus potentially breaching peoples
constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression in the United States
Constitution.14 These criticisms are consistent with the proposal that the only
information that can be removed by user's request is content that they themselves
uploaded.15
10 Friedman, Lawrence Meir (2007). "The Red Kimono [sic]: The Saga of Gabriel Darley Melvin". Guarding
Life's Dark Secrets: Legal and Social Controls over Reputation, Propriety, and Privacy. Stanford
University Press. pp. 217–225. ISBN 978-0-8047-5739-3.
11 Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal.App. 285, 297 P. 91 (1931) at 852-853
12 Sidis v F-R Publishing Corporation 311 U.S. 711 61 S. Ct. 393 85 L. Ed. 462 1940 U.S.
13 id
14 Walker, Robert K. "The Right to be forgotten." 64 Hastings Law Journal 257, 2012. Pg 257.
15 id