8 June 2015 Anonymous Free Speech

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File
Page 1
West Coast
Publishing
Public Forum June 2015
Anonymous Free Speech
Starter File
Edited by Jim Hanson
Research assistance by
Adam McKibben and others
Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials.
Please dont share this material with

anyone outside of your school
including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc.
Were a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.
Contact us at jim@wcdebate.com
www.wcdebate.com
Were a small non-profit. Please dont share this file with those who have
not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies,
email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com
Page 2
Resolved: The benefits of First

Amendment protection of
anonymous speech outweigh
the harms.
Page 3
WEST COAST DEBATE

PUBLIC FORUM JUNE 2015
ANONYMOUS FREE SPEECH
Finding Arguments in this File
Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation
bar on the left. We have tried to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible.
Using the arguments in this File
We encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key
lines you will use in the evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others
research and make new files. File the evidence so that you can easily retrieve it when you
need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence out-loud; Practice applying the
arguments to your opponents positions; Practice defending your evidence in rebuttal
speeches.
Use West Coast Evidence as a Beginning
We hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make
a strong statement that we make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to
your success: DO NOT USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of how to tag
and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Dont stagnate in
these files--build upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and
arguments that specifically apply to your opponents. In doing so, youll use our evidence to
become a better debater.
Copying West Coast Evidence
Our policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without
violating our hard work.
You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team.
You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than
those on your team unless you very substantially change each page of material that
you share.
For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at jim@wcdebate.com and seek our consent.
Ordering West Coast Materials
1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com
2. E-mail us at jim@wcdebate.com
3. Fax us at 877-781-5058
Copyright 2015. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Visit our web page!

www.wcdebate.com
Page 4
Page 5
Table of Contents
WEST COAST DEBATE.............................................................................................. 3

Table of Contents..................................................................................................... 4
AFFIRMATIVE............................................................................................................... 7
RTBF Solves Search engines respond.................................................................11
RTBF Needed Surveillance Society Coming Now..............................................12
RTBF Good Privacy/Rehabilitation....................................................................13
RTBF Good Privacy outweighs freedom of speech...........................................14
RTBF Good Solves outsourcing of memory......................................................15
RTBF Good Improves identity/culture formation..............................................16
RTBF Good Improves economy........................................................................17
Free Expression Is Not Absolute.........................................................................18
Ordinary People Need The Right To Be Forgotten...............................................19
Ordinary People Need The Right To Be Forgotten...............................................20
Right To Be Forgotten Doesnt Undermine Public Interests................................22
Right To Be Forgotten Is Necessary For Autonomy.............................................23
Right To Be Forgotten: Autonomy Impacts.........................................................24
Privacy Rights Are Vital...................................................................................... 25
Privacy Rights Are Necessary For Democracy....................................................28
Right To Be Forgotten Necessary To Stop Totalitarianism...................................29
Right To Be Forgotten Necessary To Stop Totalitarianism...................................30
Speech Restrictions Bolster Speech Freedoms......................................................32
Restrictions are Necessary to Create a Safe Space for Free Speech (1/2).............33
Restrictions are Necessary to Create a Safe Space for Free Speech (2/2).............34
Regulations are Necessary for National Security (1/3)..........................................35
Restrictions Good for Rights Protections...............................................................38
Threatening Speech is Bad for Adolescents (1/3)..................................................39
Regulations Needed Due to New Technology........................................................44
Page 6
Regulations Do Not Go Far Enough........................................................................45

Restrictions Good for Autonomy, Identity, and Personal Safety (1/3)....................47
NEGATIVE................................................................................................................. 50
RTBF Destroys Privacy and Free Speech.............................................................53
RTBF Doesnt solve............................................................................................. 55
RTBF Doesnt Solve Technology limits.............................................................56
RTBF Doesnt Solve Loopholes/Unnecessary...................................................57
RTBF fails Huge backlog of requests................................................................58
RTBF will be abused........................................................................................... 59
RTBF hurts the Economy.................................................................................... 60
RTBF Backfires Streisand Effect.......................................................................61
Right To Be Forgotten Is Generally Undesirable..................................................62
Right To Be Forgotten Is Generally Undesirable..................................................63
Right To Be Forgotten Is Easily Circumvented....................................................64
Right To Be Forgotten Undermines Democracy..................................................65
Right to Be Forgotten Unwisely Empowers Search Engine Companies...............66
Right To Be Forgotten Hurts Public Knowledge...................................................67
Right To Be Forgotten Protects Evil People.........................................................68
Right To Be Forgotten Protects Evil People.........................................................69
Right To Be Forgotten Enables Totalitarianism....................................................70
Right To Be Forgotten Enables Totalitarianism....................................................71
Right To Be Forgotten Laws Are Ineffective........................................................72
Right to Be Forgotten Laws Are Ineffective........................................................74
Other Concerns Outweigh Privacy......................................................................76
Images and Information Protected by First Amendment....................................77
Free Speech Outweighs Privacy.........................................................................78
Freedom of Speech Key to Democracy (1/3).........................................................82
Page 7
Freedom of Speech Good for Adolescents (1/2).....................................................86

Freedom of Speech Good for Adolescents (2/2).....................................................87
Freedom of Speech Key to Autonomy (1/2)...........................................................88
Freedom of Speech Key to Autonomy (2/2)...........................................................89
Marketplace of Ideas Good (1/2)...........................................................................90
Marketplace of Ideas Good (2/2)...........................................................................91
Oppressive Regimes and Censorship (1/2)............................................................92
Oppressive Regimes and Censorship (2/2)............................................................94
Government Restrictions Unjustly Displace Demonstrations.................................95
Governments Block Internet Access......................................................................96
Speech Restrictions Embolden Terrorist Actions....................................................98
Speech Restrictions Encourage Government Violence..........................................99
Security Should Not Outweigh Personal Freedoms (1/2)......................................100
Security Should Not Outweigh Personal Freedoms (2/2)......................................101
Free Speech Zones are Bad.................................................................................102
Regulations Ineffective........................................................................................ 103
Page 8
PRO
Change will not be minor, right to be forgotten will totally
rebuild Googles indexing approach
Lisa Eadicicco, writer for Business Insider, May 13, 2014, GOOGLE'S
NIGHTMARE: European Court Rules That People Have A 'Right To Be Forgotten',
accessed July 21, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/european-union-courtruling-to-remove-google-search-results-2014-5
The European Union Court of Justice's decision means more than just a simple policy
change for Google. The ruling could mean a complete overhaul in the way
Google indexes the internet, according to David P. Fidler, professor of law at the
Indiana University Maurer School of Law. "It's just sort of an astonishing possibility
that Google is looking at, to play this sort of role in whether or not the individual has
the right to be forgotten," Fidler said. "I can imagine Google is saying 'we don't have
any idea what the implications of this are.'"
Free Expression is important

Milana Knezevic, journalist for IndexCensorship, March 20, 2013, Why is access to freedom of
expression important? accessed July 21, 2014, http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/03/why-is-access-tofreedom-of-expression-important/
Why is access to freedom of expression important? Freedom of expression is a

fundamental human right. It also underpins most other rights and allows them to
flourish. The right to speak your mind freely on important issues in society, access
information and hold the powers that be to account, plays a vital role in the healthy
development process of any society. The lack of access to freedom of expression is a
problem that particularly affects the already marginalised that is, minorities facing
discrimination both in developed and developing countries, from LGBT people in African countries, to disabled
people in Western Europe. While the scale of their struggles varies greatly, the principle is the same: within the
If they
are unable to communicate their ideas, views, worries and needs effectively, means
they are often excluded from meaningful participation in society, and from the
opportunity to better their own circumstances . In other words, discrimination is one of the core
context of their society, these groups face greater barriers to freedom of expression than the majority.
elements of unequal access to freedom of expression.
Access to helpful information for the public is key

Laura Neuman, Senior Programs Associate, Americas Program, April 11, 2005, A Key to Democracy:
Access to Information Critical for Citizens, Governments, accessed July 21, 2014,
http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1860.html
I am often asked why people who sometimes don't have even pennies to their name
should care about a right that to them seems very distant, such as the right to information, and
my response is simple: citizens should care because information allows them to participate
in priority setting and decision-making, to hold their government accountable , and
to assure equal treatment and equal justice. Information belongs to the people; governments
simply hold information in their name. Public documents include anything from a birth certificate to a contract for
The right to information was considered so

important that when former South African President Nelson Mandela was drafting their new
road construction to studies that underpin public policy.
Page 9
democratic constitution, he made certain that this was one of the first rights
included. Mandela understood that it is a lack of information and a lack of
knowledge that allows systems such as apartheid to thrive . With information,
citizens can better secure their democratic rights.
Right to be forgotten causes censorship and limits the

openness of the internet
Jeffrey Rosen, Professor of Law at the George Washington University and Legal Affairs Editor for the New
Republic, February 13, 2012, The Right to Be Forgotten, accessed July 11, 2014,
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten
At the end of January, the European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights, and Citizenship, Viviane Reding,
announced the European Commissions proposal to create a sweeping new privacy right the
right to be
forgotten. The right, which has been hotly debated in Europe for the past few years, has finally
been codified as part of a broad new proposed data protection regulation . Although
Reding depicted the new right as a modest expansion of existing data privacy rights, in fact it represents the
biggest threat to free speech on the Internet in the coming decade. The right to be
forgotten could make Facebook and Google, for example, liable for up to two
percent of their global income if they fail to remove photos that people post about
themselves and later regret, even if the photos have been widely distributed
already. Unless the right is defined more precisely when it is promulgated over the next year or so, it could
precipitate a dramatic clash between European and American conceptions of the
proper balance between privacy and free speech, leading to a far less open Internet.
Right to be forgotten severely damages the economy places

huge burden on Google
Emily Hong, Chilling Effects Staff, July 7, 2014, The Right to be Forgotten:
Already in Need of Reform? accessed July 20, 2014,
https://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=839
First, by giving Google and its peers the primary responsibility for reviewing
requests on a case-by-case basis," "apply[ing] the criteria mentioned in EU law,
and deciding which requests are valid both disproportionately burdens these
companies as well as gives them excessive power over pubic flows of
information. Interestingly, Google's own policy statement perfectly articulates the
problem with this part of the ruling: "these are difficult judgements and as a private
organization, we may not be in a good position to decide on your case ." As it stands, the
court's judgment provides little guidance on how exactly European privacy regulators might or should work with
the difficulties in enforcing the law go

beyond deciding which requests are valid . How can Google and other internet
service providers (ISPs) make the takedown process transparent without defeating
the purpose of the original law? As with DMCA-required takedowns, Google flags R2BF-modified search
results for its users. This brings up the previously-mentioned Streisand Effect. Moreover, it is easy to
circumvent the removal through simple workarounds like swapping Google.com for
Google.co.uk. This, the law has the potential to increasing censorship without
necessarily guaranteeing the right to be forgotten . As we have seen with US Copyright and the
DMCA (articulated by Chilling Effects founder Wendy Seltzer here:, the notice and takedown system
implemented for R2BF requests could result in abusive activity that threatens
ISPs to provide oversight and consistency. Furthermore,
free expression . Bad faith actors may develop sophisticated strategies to remove
lawful speech while ostensibly filing under the right to be forgotten .
Page 10
Page 11
Right to be forgotten will only be wielded by the rich and

powerful
Jeff Clark, staff writer for The Data Center Journal, July 8, 2014, Right to Be
Forgotten: Forget About It, accessed July 17, 2014,
http://www.datacenterjournal.com/it/forgotten-forget/
Unfortunately, determining whether information is outdated or inaccurate can be
difficult. Terms like relevant and public interest are loosely defined at best, leaving
companies like Google to draw lines and, if someone disagrees vehemently, defend
their actions in court. Thus, as one would expect, the rich and powerful (particularly
those in government) will have the greatest means to flex this newly discovered
right to be forgotteneven though the actions of such individuals are likely of
greatest relevance and public interest.
Right to be forgotten only removes the search results, not the

information from its actual source
Amy Edwards, writer for Business 2 Community, July 17, 2014, Googles Right To Be Forgotten A
Dream Come True For Job Seekers? accessed July 21, 2014, http://www.business2community.com/humanresources/googles-right-forgotten-dream-come-true-job-seekers-0946918#!bjncKO
Remember, just because the page is removed from Google or Bings search results,
it wont be removed from the website or page in question. For example; say the
article in question is on The Guardian. Should your request be successful, the
Guardian page/article will be removed from Google/Bing, but wont be removed
from The Guardian itself. This means that while a potential employer wont be able
to find the article via a search engine, theyll still be able to find the article if they
go directly to the source. Another thing to consider is how likely an employer is to
actually search for you on Google or Bing and whether the information listed
would actually affect your chances of getting a job
Page 12
RTBF Destroys Privacy and Free Speech

Right to be forgotten hurts free speech squelches access to
information
Jeff Clark, staff writer for The Data Center Journal, July 8, 2014, Right to Be Forgotten: Forget About It,
accessed July 17, 2014, http://www.datacenterjournal.com/it/forgotten-forget/
A recent European court decision involving Google has raised awareness and debate regarding the so-called right to
the right to be forgotten creates more

problems than it solves and may actually become detrimental to better-established
rights like free speech. . . .
Like the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten is a poorly thought-out concept . Privacy, for
be forgotten. Rooted in matters related to privacy,
instance, is more a responsibility than a right: an individual must take reasonable steps to protect his or her privacy
(by, say, pulling down the shades over windows into a bathroom or encrypting data sent over the Internet) rather
than demanding that others forego perfectly legal activities (such as looking at a house while walking on a public
street or sidewalk). Trespassing and theft laws are generally sufficient to ensure a reasonable amount of privacy (at
least when the NSA isnt involved); similarly, libel laws protect individuals from using false information to tarnish
The right to be forgotten, however, is more likely to be employed as a

right to make sure that people forget I acted like an idiot. Again, the European
ruling doesnt seem to apply to sources of information as much as to search engines
(and it only applies, currently, in the E.U.). But given the reliance on Google and similar tools to
find information (particularly in light of the myriad websites on the Internet), it comes dangerously
close to doing so. Mashable notes that search engines make it easy to find
information and are responsible when that information is outdated or inaccurate , the
reputations.
court said. The worlds leading search engine, for instance, has already received tens of thousands of requests to
remove links under the ruling. But according to Wired, British news organizations are reporting that Google is now
removing links to some of their articles, including stories that involve the disgraceful actions of powerful people.
Right to be forgotten conflicts significantly with freedom of

expression
Alison Tilley, writer for the Daily Maverick, May 25, 2014, Op-ed: Privacy - do we have the right to be
forgotten? accessed July 21, 2014, http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-05-25-op-ed-privacy-do-we-havethe-right-to-be-forgotten/
The judgment of the European Court, according to Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of
Index on Censorship, is akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp
books. Although the ruling is intended for private individuals, it opens the door to
anyone who wants to whitewash their personal history. According to Article 19, an
international NGO working on freedom of expression issues, The implications of the
Courts judgment for free expression are profoundly worrying. Although the Court
was interpreting a data protection measure rather than some outright restriction on
free speech, the Court failed to even mention the right to freedom of expression and
information under Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Right to be forgotten violates free speech prevents you

from talking about me
Michael Hoven, published in Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, May 2, 2012, Balancing Privacy and
Speech in the Right to Be Forgotten, accessed July 17, 2014, http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/privacy/balancingprivacy-and-speech-in-the-right-to-be-forgotten#_edn8
Erasure rights remain distinct in two ways: they give power over speech to another
individual, and speech that was once protected can become unprotected . These features
are pronounced in erasure rights, but they have analogues in other regulations that restrain speech. In Harris v.
Forklift Systems, Inc., the Supreme Court clarified that hostile work environment claims are conditioned, in part, on
the subjective perception of the victim (and did so without mentioning the First Amendment, even though each
party briefed the Court on the issue). In trademark law, the rights of the trademark holder wax and wane according
Page 13
to use and public perception. A descriptive mark can gain trademark protection if it acquires secondary meaning,
and a trademark can lose protection through abandonment or through public usage of the mark as a generic term.
Volokh finds privacy protections most troublesome when they give me a right
to stop you from speaking about me, the challenge of online privacy is that many
perceived privacy violations emerge from precisely this situationyou talking about
me. Rumors about sexual activity can be posted to college gossip sites; photos may
be uploaded to social networks against someones wishes; information about
alcohol and drug use intended for friends may be seen by potential employers.
While
Right to be forgotten is unconstitutional violates the first

amendment
Michael Hoven, published in Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, May 2, 2012, Balancing Privacy and
Speech in the Right to Be Forgotten, accessed July 17, 2014, http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/privacy/balancingprivacy-and-speech-in-the-right-to-be-forgotten#_edn8
As the White House and FTC recommendations show, the right to be forgotten (or an eraser button or
other form of data suppression) is not an unthinkable measure to protect privacy in the United States. However, it
would have to overcome the powerful objection that it conflicts with the freedom of
speech. Jeffrey Rosen, writing in the Stanford Law Review Online, articulates this concern in his
analysis of the right to be forgotten, which he interprets to give people a right to
request takedowns of information originally posted by someone else . In the U.S.
context, giving an individual the power to force the removal of information posted by
someone else can be and has been characterized as a violation of First Amendment rights.
Eugene Volokh exemplifies this position, arguing that information privacy rules are likely
unconstitutional because the right to information privacy . . . is a right to have the
government stop you from speaking about me.
Page 14
RTBF Doesnt solve

Completely removing data from the internet is extremely
difficult, and harder to verify
Bert-Jaap Koops, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, December 20, 2011, Forgetting
Footprints, Shunning Shadows: A Critical Analysis of the 'Right to Be Forgotten' in Big Data Practice, accessed July
16, 2014, http://script-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/koops.pdf
complications arise due to the multiplying character of Internet data. Even if

data are removed at the source, copies can still be retained in caches (technical
measures to foster efficiency on the net) or on mirror websites. Although users will have the same right to
More
request removal from such secondary sites as from the primary
source, and the caching or content providers have
it will be a greater challenge for users

to identify the particular providers that host copies. Caching providers can perhaps
be found sufficiently through search engines and will generally have an interest in complying with a request
for removal, but mirror sites may be less traceable or co-operative . There is a
significant tendency on the Internet to copy material that is considered funny or
embarrassing, and particularly when official requests are made to remove material
at the source there are actors who, acting upon a sweeping vision of the freedom
of expression, copy material to preserve it for the online community .
similar responsibilities as data
controllers to remove the data,
Right to be forgotten requires not just codification as a civil

right, but full fledge policy implementation combining
legislation, technology, and enforcement mechanisms
Bert-Jaap Koops, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, December 20, 2011, Forgetting
Footprints, Shunning Shadows: A Critical Analysis of the 'Right to Be Forgotten' in Big Data Practice, accessed July
16, 2014, http://script-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/koops.pdf
Although good starting points exist in law and technology to enable data subjects to have their data deleted in
proponents of a right to be forgotten hardly substantiate how this vision

could effectively materialise. A closer analysis of the legal and technical measures
reveals that a strong legal and policy effort is required ; both to actually shape a
true right to be forgotten for data subjects and to have these rights effectively
enforced through mandatory forgetfulness-by-design , while enabling technologies
to get a grip on data shadows are still in an embryonic stage .
due time, the
Right to be forgotten unnecessary

Jeff Clark, staff writer for The Data Center Journal, July 8, 2014, Right to Be
Forgotten: Forget About It, accessed July 17, 2014,

http://www.datacenterjournal.com/it/forgotten-forget/
Laws are currently in place to protect people from false accusations and other
slanderous speech. A right to be forgotten, therefore, is simply a means to avoid the
consequences (i.e., public knowledge) of ones stupidity. (Granted, special cases always crop up:
mistaken identities can ruin reputations, for instance, and little can be done to reverse the damage.) But everyone
has done stupid stuffsome of us have done worse than others, and some of us, by chance, have avoided the
Just as we cant legislate the forgetfulness of our

associates, we should presumably be unable to legislate the forgetfulness of the
Internet. The best we can do is simply to learn from past mistakes and be smarter in
the future. Perhaps more important than any fake right to be forgotten is a
reevaluation of how we share data: rather than simply expecting or demanding
privacy, individuals must take charge of their privacy . And that may mean
avoiding use of free services like Facebook as a forum for every little detail about
limelight in our more inane moments.
Page 15
your life and carefully choosing your search engine. Of course, total privacy in any society
(defined, presumably, as involving interaction among people) is impossible, but in a free society (i.e., one that
The right to be forgotten, however, is

less about protecting individuals privacy or reputation and more about forcing
others to pretend certain information doesnt exist .
would prohibit an NSA-like agency), certain lines can be drawn.
Page 16
RTBF Doesnt Solve Technology limits

There are huge technical limits on implementation of the right
to be forgotten
Ccile de Terwangne, Revista de internet, International Conference on Internet,
Law & Politics, February 2012, Internet Privacy and the Right to Be
Forgotten/Right to Oblivion, accessed July 17, 2014,
http://idp.uoc.edu/index.php/idp/article/download/n13-terwangne_esp/1122
One must be conscious of the technical limits of the implementation of the right to
be forgotten: having ones data deleted from the Web is not as simple as that. You
have first to ask the editor of the concerned website to erase the problematic data.
Once he has complied with your demand, the information will still be available for a
while in the results presented by the search engines in the cache memory. It can
take some days or weeks till the next indexation of the site will bring an updated
version to the cache memory. During the time that the data are publicly available,
interested people may download and share the information without you being aware
of it. If you discover that, for example, other Internet users have downloaded and
re-published the information on their website, you will have to do the cleaning job
again. And at some point in this Sisyphean activity, you will probably face great
difficulty in convincing the website editor or the inertia of your interlocutor.
Moreover, the architecture of information systems has become much more complex,
with the numerous links rendering any deletion of data tricky and expensive.
Identifying which party has responsibility and agency to

remove the data is challenging
Bert-Jaap Koops, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society, December 20,
2011, Forgetting Footprints, Shunning Shadows: A Critical Analysis of the 'Right to
Be Forgotten' in Big Data Practice, accessed July 16, 2014, http://script-ed.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/koops.pdf
In conclusion, it will often be clear against whom a right to be forgotten can be
exercised, namely the data
difficulties arise in Web 2.0

situations where data you want to be deleted are uploaded by others who can often fall
under the household exception, or where the fuzzy responsibility allocation between SNS
provider and users makes it difficult, in theory if not in practice, to pinpoint the right
target for having data deleted. Also parties responsible for copies in caches or
mirror sites can be difficult to address. Moreover, for several types of data users have
no claim on data controllers as these are subject to legislative obligations to retain
data, and it is doubtful whether users can successfully target the state to challenge the retention of data they
controller who has the primary responsibility for the data
have an
at issue. Nevertheless,
interest in seeing removed.
Page 17
RTBF Doesnt Solve Loopholes/Unnecessary

Loopholes mean RTBF wont solve
Sam Schechner, staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2014, Google
Starts Removing Search Results Under Europe's 'Right to be Forgotten', accessed
July 21, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/google-starts-removing-search-resultsunder-europes-right-to-be-forgotten-1403774023
At least one privacy regulator has expressed displeasure to Google in recent weeks over
the fact that the company is only removing results from name searches on its
European websites, but leaving them intact on the U.S.-based www.google.com , a
person familiar with the meeting said. European Google users are normally redirected to local
European versions of Google, but can easily change their preferences to use the
unfiltered U.S. version. Regulators from the EU's 28 member states decided in early June to work out a
uniform policy for interpreting the ruling, and Google says it plans to work with them. Google has appeared
to bend to regulators' desire that the company refrain from indicating in search
results when something had been removed . Google had earlier indicated it might
highlight the removals, something it does when it removes links to pirated content .
But EU regulators told Google in recent weeks that such a move would undermine
the spirit of the decision by making it clear some individuals had wanted
information about them suppressed, one regulator said. Instead, Google on Thursday
added a blanket notification that appears at the bottom of most results for
individual name searches conducted on Google's European search websites , according
to an explanation the company posted to its website. The notification"Some results may have
been removed under data protection law in Europe"is added algorithmically to
searches that appear to be for a name, a person familiar with the matter said.
Right to be forgotten is unnecessary 85% of web content

disappears in a year anyway
Meg Leta Ambrose, Assistant Professor of Communication, Culture, and
Technology (CCT) at Georgetown University, 2013, It's About Time: Privacy,
Information Life Cycles, and the Right to be Forgotten, accessed July 21, 2014,
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
params=/context/meg_ambrose/article/1001/type/native/&path_info=
The current consensus is that information, once online, is there forever. Content
permanence has led many European countries, the European Union, and even the
United States to establish a right to be forgotten to protect citizens from the
shackles of the past presented by the Internet. But, the Internet has not defeated
time, and information, like everything, gets old, decays, and dies, even online. Quite
the opposite of permanent, the Web cannot be self-preserving. One study from the
field of content persistence, a body of research that has been almost wholly
overlooked by legal scholars, found that 85% of content disappears in a year and
that 59% disappears in a week, signifying a decrease in the lifespan of online
content when compared with previous studies.
Page 18
RTBF fails Huge backlog of requests

Google has a huge backlog of requests
Suppose that I am an EU resident from the small town of Bjilbrudy. A number of
years ago, I ran a restaurant that closed after a former employee sued for sexual
harassment. The suit was covered by a few local news outlets and blogs, and I've
since opened a second establishment. In 2014, I file a "Right to be Forgotten"
(R2BF) request with Google to expunge all links to articles about the suit associated
with my name. Is information about this past lawsuit now "outdated" or "irrelevant,"
and should these Internet service providers comply with my request? Or is the
availability of this information in the public interest, and furthermore, is both the
content and its "discoverability" protected as free journalistic expression? As this
hypothetical demonstrates, deciding that what online information is outdated or
irrelevant can be tricky. Google is currently dealing with a backlog of over
50,000 European "Right to be Forgotten" (R2BF) requests, and both privacy and
free speech advocates watched raptly as the search engine began acting on such
requests late last month. Already media organizations have cried foul for overbroad
censorship. Over the weekend, journalists from both the BBC and The Guardian
specific removals, leading to a "Streisand Effect" situation in which Google
eventually reinstated the relevant links. Others have accused Google of
undermining the new law by applying it in a way that feigns censorship and
increases public opposition.
Google flooded with takedown requests

John Ribeiro, staff writer for PC World, July 17, 2014, Bing follows Google in
offering Europeans the 'right to be forgotten', accessed July 20, 2014,
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2455240/microsofts-bing-follows-google-in-offeringeuropeans-the-right-to-be-forgotten.html
Google, which set up its removal request form in May, said that since the CJEU
ruling, it has received over 70,000 take-down requests covering more than 250,000
Web pages. Search engines can be asked to remove results for queries that include
an applicants name if those results are inadequate, irrelevant or no longer
relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed,
the court ordered. In deciding what to remove, search engines must also consider
the public interest, Googles Chief Legal Officer David Drummond wrote in an
opinion piece in The Guardian newspaper. These are, of course, very vague and
subjective tests, he added.
Right to be forgotten will flood companies like google with

requests
Danny Hakim, staff writer for the New York Times, May 29, 2014, Right to Be
Forgotten? Not That Easy, accessed July 17, 2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/business/international/on-the-internet-theright-to-forget-vs-the-right-to-know.html?_r=1
Page 19
Search companies will face a considerable challenge in responding to the requests.

Google alone handled more than 23 million requests in the last month to remove
links to copyrighted material around the world. But much of those efforts are automated and
address straightforward issues like taking down a link to a stolen movie. Dealing with individuals who
bring complaints in Europe promises to be more complex because it would most
likely require additional employees to grapple with less clear-cut decisions. Google now
has a web form for Europeans to request that links be removed. The company also said it plans to create an
While the ruling appears to

newly enshrine a right to be forgotten, Europe has long taken an aggressive
stance on individual rights in the digital age . Each nation in the European Union already has a data
advisory committee to cultivate a public conversation about these issues.
protection agency through which citizens can appeal for help in erasing their online histories.
Page 20
RTBF will be abused

Fraudulent requests for the right to be forgotten are both
easier to send and harder to detect than copyright claims
creates great potential for abuse
Moreover, given the inherent subjectivity of the content, R2BF requests promise to
be even more ambiguous than copyright claims. Formulaic notice services are thus
even more likely to upset the balance between privacy and freedom of expression
by making fraudulent requests both easier to send and harder to detect. In a pool of
50,000+ incoming notices, a false positive rate of just 0.1% would amount to 50
individual cases that result in the harmful loss of speech. Magnify that by several
orders of magnitude... The law as currently applied may do as much harm as good,
but the international attention generated by the Right to be Forgotten signals
increasing concern for data privacy and the power of ISPs. The pitfalls of standing
law should function as incentive to enact broader reforms for online privacy law.
Websites are cropping up to catalogue hidden search results

Caroline Preece, writer for ITPro, July 16, 2014, Google right to be forgotten
blocked search results listed online, accessed July 21, 2014,
http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/22709/google-right-to-be-forgotten-blocked-searchresults-listed-online
A new website, Hidden from Google, has been set up to list results removed from
the search engine under the European Court of Justice right to be forgotten ruling.
The site claims to have received hundreds of responses alerting them to hidden
search results as well as assistance from fellow developers, to create a list of 15
links currently hidden from view on Google. Afaq Tariq, a US developer who set the
site up in June, said in a BBC News article: There is an information gap there and,
where you can verify examples, you can curate a list.
Google will reject most takedown requests anyway

Sam Frizell, writer for Time Magazine, July 18, 2014, Theres a Right To Be
Forgotten Industryand Its Booming, accessed July 21, 2014,
http://time.com/3002240/right-to-be-forgotten-2/
Google has taken a hard-nosed stance toward many of the requests reputation
management firms have made, with the overwhelming number of takedown
requests coming back with refusals. Donaldson said he has sent hundreds of
requests for his clients to Google; of the requests Google has responded to, under
ten percent have been accepted , he says. Thats because Google isnt likely to
take down a search result like a newspaper story about a public figure, for instance,
or a negative review about a roofing company. People think weve got some
magic button in Google and we press delete, says Wadsworth, the CEO of Igniyte.
His clients often ask for links to be removed that wont pass Googles bar. Were
telling the majority of people, youve got no chance, Wadsworth says.
Page 21
RTBF hurts the Economy

People invoking RTBF will do so frequently, incorrectly, and
wastefully
Emma Woollacott, staff writer for Forbes, June 6, 2014, Five Reasons Not To
Invoke Your Right To Be Forgotten, accessed July 20, 2014,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/06/06/five-reasons-not-toinvoke-your-right-to-be-forgotten/
Two days ago, I received an email from an obscure reputation management company offering to get any negative
comments about me removed from Google search results. Its by no means the only firm to be jumping on this
Since last months right to be

forgotten EU ruling, Google says its had tens of thousands of requests from
individuals keen to have embarrassing or misleading search results removed from
its listings. They include a politician with a shady past, a convicted pedophile, a business with bad reviews and a
tax-dodger. Many of these people, though, may have the wrong idea about what they
can actually achieve and could end up causing themselves more harm than good .
Google can often say no For a start, Google is under no obligation to delist results if
theyre deemed to be in the public interest so the politician is likely to be onto a losing battle. And because the
ruling applies only to personal information, the badly-reviewed business wont have
any luck either, unless perhaps its someone trading under their own name. Indeed, as Ive suggested before,
theres a strong chance that Google will simply refuse all requests, bouncing the
problem into the lap of local data protection authorities and making for a much
more long-drawn-out and expensive process .
particular bandwagon theres likely to be a big market out there.
Implementation will be hugely expensive for Google

Lisa Eadicicco, writer for Business Insider, May 13, 2014, GOOGLE'S
NIGHTMARE: European Court Rules That People Have A 'Right To Be Forgotten',

accessed July 21, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/european-union-courtruling-to-remove-google-search-results-2014-5
It's too early to determine how this could affect Google's operations in Europe, but
Fidler emphasized that the outcome could potentially be severe. If Google gets
slammed with requests to strip links from its search results, the company may be
forced to put more resources toward maintaining its search engine in Europe. "We
don't know at the moment in terms of the implications, but that's why I can imagine
Google's head is spinning," he said. "The consequences could be very expensive
and very administratively burdensome ."
Europes right to be forgotten ruling will cause significant

economic problems for the continent
Craig A. Newman, CEO of the Freedom2Connect Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit established to
promote Internet freedom through technology, May 26, 2014, A right to be forgotten will cost Europe,
accessed July 20, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-right-to-be-forgotten-will-costeurope/2014/05/26/93bb0e8c-e131-11e3-9743-bb9b59cde7b9_story.html
the courts approach could cost Europe severely in lost

investment and innovation. Investors and tech entrepreneurs will surely take note
that the cost of providing information over the Internet in Europe has just
skyrocketed. Google and other search engines not only face difficult removal
In the long term, however,
Page 22
decisions. They must also build massive systems to handle removal demands. If
foreclosure notices qualify for deletion, that alone could account for millions of
requests, to say nothing of unfortunate karaoke performances and Halloween
costumes.
Page 23
RTBF Backfires Streisand Effect

Right to be forgotten causes the Streisand Effect, attempts to
conceal information actually brings more attention to that
information
Caroline Preece, writer for ITPro, July 16, 2014, Google right to be forgotten
blocked search results listed online, accessed July 21, 2014,
http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/22709/google-right-to-be-forgotten-blocked-searchresults-listed-online
It has been suggested the ruling has actually resulted in the Streisand Effect,
which means that the act of attempting to censor certain information actually draws
more attention to it. For example, when searching for various terms listed on the
site, links to Hidden from Google are appearing instead. Reaction to the ruling has
not been positive, with Justice minister Simon Hughes recently telling the House of
Lords: The government is currently negotiating with our 27 partners to get a new
law, which is the new directive and we, the UK, would not want what is currently in
the draft, which is the Right to be Forgotten, to remain. We want it to be removed,
we think it is the wrong position.
Streisand effect trying to erase web history backfires

BBC News, May 14, 2014, Google: Who would want the right to be forgotten?
accessed July 21, 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27396981
But those fighting for the right to have something forgotten should be wary of the
"Streisand effect". Named after the singer and actor Barbra Streisand, proponents
suggest that the mere act of trying to suppress a piece of information on the
internet can backfire spectacularly . Streisand reportedly attempted to suppress
photos of her beachside home, but media coverage of the action massively
increased the number of people viewing the photos. Or there's the case of Max
Mosley who has taken legal action to force Google to stop linking to images of him
during an orgy with prostitutes because of the breach of his privacy. He was
successful in his action but the net result does of course increase the level of
references to the episode.
Page 24
Right To Be Forgotten Is Generally Undesirable

Right to be forgotten fails to account for the ever-changing
content of sites and the time-sensitive nature of content
relevance
Jonathan Zittrain, professor of Internet law at Harvard Law School, July 14, 2014
"Righting the Right to Be Forgotten," Future of the Internet,
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/futureoftheinternet/2014/07/14/righting-the-right-to-beforgotten/ (accessed 10/5/2014)
Finally, the Court needs to recognize that the Web is protean. Sites and content
change, including such ever-evolving pages as Wikipedia biographies, which means
that a decision rendered at a point in time may lose its rationale later on just as
the Court acknowledges that something that was once relevant could become
irrelevant over time, and thus subject to a takedown. Its argument cuts both ways.
One way to deal with this is for redaction decisions to be limited in time. Successful
claimants should register and maintain an email address for a reminder that a
redaction is about to expire. Prior to expiration a claimant should have to seek to
renew the redaction.
The right to be forgotten requires enforcement by companies

themselves, making the rules opaque and hard to determine
Stewart Baker, former General Counsel of the National Security Administration,
September 8, 2014
"Inside Europe's Censorship Machinery," The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/08/insideeuropes-censorship-machinery/ (accessed 10/5/2014)
For those of you who havent followed recent developments in censorship, the right
to be forgotten is a European requirement that irrelevant or outdated information
be excluded from searches about individuals. The doctrine extends even to true
information that remains on the internet. And it is enforced by the search engines
themselves, operating under a threat of heavy liability. That makes the rules
particularly hard to determine, since theyre buried in private companies
decisionmaking processes.
RTBF supporters confuse the search engine with the media

itself
Frank Pasquale, Professor of Law at the University of Maryland, June 1, 2014
"Lessons from the 'right to be forgotten,'" The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/punditsblog/technology/207841-lessons-from-the-right-to-be-forgotten (accessed

10/5/2014)
The big problem we are facing now is search engine essentialism: Many people just
don't want to think about the complexity involved in the new information location
services. So they lazily analogize them to newspapers or other media. Of course,
sometimes the search engine is acting merely as a media source. But that is
certainly not the case all the time. And even if we think that it is media, there are
different rules for different media much of what the Federal Communications
Commission does[,] does not affect newspapers.
Page 25
Page 26
Right To Be Forgotten Is Generally Undesirable

Courts are an inappropriate mechanism to balance public and
individual rights, and decisions will be made in secret
Mieke Eoyang, director of the National Security Program at Third Way, August 26,
2014
"Europe's 'Right to Be Forgotten' Is All Wrong," U.S. News and World Report,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/08/26/europes-right-to-beforgotten-by-google-is-all-wrong (accessed 10/5/2014)
In this country, we should avoid their example. The courts are not the right place to
make policy that requires a complex balancing of individual and public rights. The
facts presented in one particular case are insufficient to guide a company in
deciding all the ways in which the publics right to know should be preserved. And
making the decision behind closed doors does not allow the public to challenge the
rationale, pose examples or present alternate hypotheses.
The right to be forgotten lacks clear standards, checks and

balances, and an appeals process
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, July 3, 2014
"Right to be forgotten: A poor ruling, clumsily implemented," Index on Censorship,

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/07/right-forgotten-poor-ruling-clumsilyimplemented/ (accessed 10/5/2014)
The fact remains that this ruling is deeply problematic, and needs to be challenged
on many fronts. We need policymakers to recognise this flabby ruling needs to be
tightened up fast with proper checks and balances clear guidelines on what can
and should be removed (not leaving it to Google and others to define their own
standards of relevance), demands for transparency from search engines on who
and how they make decisions, and an appeals process. If search engines really
believe this is a poor ruling then they should make a clear stand against it by
kicking all right to be forgotten requests to data protection authorities to make
decisions. The flood of requests that would be driven to these already stretched
national organisations might help to focus minds on how to prevent a ruling
intended to protect personal privacy from becoming a blanket invitation to
censorship.
Page 27
Right To Be Forgotten Is Easily Circumvented

Web sites will circumvent the right to be forgotten by
publicizing the articles requested to be hidden
Julia Fioretti, EU correspondent for Reuters, focusing on telecommunication,
digital issues, and transport, August 6, 2014
"Wikipedia Fights Back Against Europe's 'Right to Be Forgotten'," Yahoo News,
http://news.yahoo.com/wikipedia-fights-back-against-europes-forgotten161054642--finance.html (accessed 10/5/2014)
Wikipedia fought back against Europe's "right to be forgotten" by listing the online
encyclopedia's articles removed from search results, snubbing a court ruling that
allows people to stop personal information appearing under Internet searches.
Media will publish stories about the data being de-listed,

making the right to be forgotten pointless
Natasha Lomas, reporter for Tech Crunch, September 19, 2014
"Europe Seeks A Common Appeals Process For The Right To Be Forgotten," Tech
Crunch, http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/19/rtbf-appeals-guidelines/ (accessed
10/4/2014)
Many media outlets have been outspoken critics of the rtbf ruling. Indeed, some
outlets have published stories about the data involved in individual de-listing
requests, especially where it involves their own content, thereby undermining the
ruling by re-publicizing content that private individuals might have been seeking to
obscure.
Requesters will face negative headlines about their requests,

defeating the purpose of RTBF
Rob Price, London Bureau Chief at Daily Dot, August 5, 2014
"'Right to be forgotten' debate heats up as censorship hits Wikipedia," Daily Dot,
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/eu-wikipedia-right-to-be-forgotten/ (accessed
10/4/2014)
Previous takedown requests have focused on news articles, and include Dougie
McDonald, an ex-referee who was found to have lied about a judgement he made on
the pitch, and Stan O'Neal, a former Merill Lynch chief who has been "blamed for
helping cause the global financial crisis," as the Daily Mail describes it. Perversely,
these takedowns have had the opposite effect of the one intended, instead
generating swathes of negative headlines for the requesters in a prime example of
the Streisand Effect.
Page 28
Right To Be Forgotten Undermines Democracy

RTBF provisions empower private corporations and take power
away from legislatures and courts, undermining democracy
Steve DelBianco, executive director for NetChoice, October 6, 2014
"No Easy Answer For Enforcing The European 'Right To Be Forgotten,'" Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/06/no-easy-answer-for-enforcing-theeuropean-right-to-be-forgotten/ (accessed 10/6/2014)
In democratic nations, the question of how to balance sometimes-competing
principles of privacy and free expression has historically been the province of
elected leaders and of courts. Forcing that responsibility onto private companies
raises serious questions about the future of online privacy and free expression not
just in Europe but everywhere in the world as the reach of this ruling expands.
Allowing removal of search results censors information the

public has the right to know about
Kyle Chayka, Writer for publications including The New Republic, New Yorker,
Pacific Standard, and others, July 15, 2014
"Should we have the right to be forgotten online?" The Daily Beast,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/15/should-we-have-the-right-to-beforgotten-online.html (accessed 10/4/2014)
Yet critics of the right to be forgotten argue that by removing Google search results,
the law is enabling censorship. Recently, an actor requested that news articles
about an affair with a teenager be removed, and a politician did the same for stories
about their erratic behavior in order to pave the way for another run for office,
according to Google. This is information that the public has a right to know.
Page 29
Right to Be Forgotten Unwisely Empowers Search

Engine Companies
Right to be forgotten gives too much power to search engine
companies
Juliette Garside, Telecommunications correspondent for the Guardian, September
9, 2014
"Right to be forgotten is a false right, Spanish editor tells Google panel," The
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/09/right-to-beforgotten-spanish-hearing-google (accessed 10/2/2014)
The academic Luciano Floridi, also a member of the Google council, criticised the
new legislation. "I don't think that the ruling has established an adequate legal
framework," he said. "It has not taken into account all the agents in the chain of
information provision and it gives great power to a third party which might not have
been very keen on getting this power, and I'm referring to the search engines."
Search engine companies cannot be trusted with complicated

case-specific data on people
Jeffrey Toobin, senior legal analyst at CNN, September 29, 2014
"The Solace of Oblivion," The New Yorker,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion
Jules Polonetsky, the executive director of the Future of Privacy Forum, a think tank
in Washington, was more vocal. The decision will go down in history as one of the
most significant mistakes that Court has ever made, he said. It gives very little
value to free expression. If a particular Web site is doing something illegal, that
should be stopped, and Google shouldnt link to it. But for the Court to outsource to
Google complicated case-specific decisions about whether to publish or suppress
something is wrong. Requiring Google to be a court of philosopher kings shows a
real lack of understanding about how this will play out in reality.
RTBF is wrong both in principle and practice

Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent at the Guardian, July 29, 2014
"Right to be forgotten is unworkable, say peers," The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/30/right-to-be-forgottenunworkable-peers (accessed 10/5/2014)
A "right to be forgotten" enforcing the removal of online material is wrong in
principle and unworkable in practice, a parliamentary committee has said. The
House of Lords home affairs, health and education EU sub-committee has
condemned regulations being drawn up by the European commission and a recent
landmark judgment by the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.
Page 30
Right To Be Forgotten Hurts Public Knowledge

Removal of information undermines public transparency and
causes information gaps
Juliette Garside, Telecommunications correspondent for the Guardian, September
9, 2014
"Right to be forgotten is a false right, Spanish editor tells Google panel," The
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/09/right-to-beforgotten-spanish-hearing-google (accessed 10/2/2014)
"Removing or de-indexing information runs contrary to the rights of citizens to
access information and is contrary to transparency," said Domnguez. "Transparency
is something we demand from our governments, our NGOs and our institutions. This
is creating information gaps. This is a false court ruling on a false right."
RTBF allows erasure of specific information about public

figures
Peter Gearin, Assistant Editor at Sydney Morning Herald, September 29, 2014
"European 'right to be forgotten' ruling should not make people disappear online,"
Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/european-right-to-beforgotten-ruling-should-not-make-people-disappear-online-20140924-10d2jk.html
(accessed 10/2/2014)
But hope for those harbouring any skeletons came in May, when the European Court
of Justice ruled that search engines must erase, on request, search results that are
"inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant". This followed a European Union
directive that seeks to protect an individual's "right to be forgotten". The ruling
means that anyone can ask search engines to hide them in a specific search results,
effectively "erasing" the reference to them.
Right to be forgotten takes away publics ability to make

decisions about public issues
Steve Ranger, UK editor-in-chief of ZDNet and TechRepublic, August 24, 2014
"Right to be forgotten: The failure is in us, not Google," ZDNet.com,
http://www.zdnet.com/right-to-be-forgotten-the-failure-is-in-us-not-google7000032882/ (accessed 10/3/2014)
The problem with right to be forgotten is that it takes that choice away from us. It
means we don't have the information to make those judgements at all right or
wrong. We can't make intelligent decisions about how to respond to this information
if it's hidden from us. Denial and obfuscation is not the right answer to the
challenges ahead.
Page 31
Right To Be Forgotten Protects Evil People

RTBF protects the powerful from public scrutiny
Jack Mirkinson, Senior Media Editor for The Huffington Post, July 4, 2014
"Why Google Is Yanking Negative Coverage Of Powerful People From Its Search
Results," Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/google-rightto-be-forgotten-media-guardian-bbc_n_5552972.html (accessed 10/3/2014)
When the ruling came down, some worried that it would place too much power in
the hands of public figures who wished to have unflattering informationand,
especially, press coverageabout themselves hidden. On Wednesday, the Guardian
and the BBC both disclosed that just such an occurrence seemed to have taken
place with stories of theirs. The BBC's case was possibly the more troubling, since it
concerned a former Wall Street titan.
RTBF rules allow sex offenders, fraudsters and politicians to

hide negative information about them from the public
Danny Sullivan, founding editor of Marketingland and Search Engine Land, July 2,
2014
"Thanks To 'Right To Be Forgotten,' Google Now Censors The Press In The EU,
Marketingland, http://marketingland.com/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-censorship-89783
In the end, many people can sympathize with someone wanting results about their
one-time mistake or long-ago embarrassing action removed. Unfortunately, the EUs
rules seem to give the same right to be forgotten to these people as it does to
pedophiles, serious criminals, fraudsters, politicians and others. It feels like there
ought be be a better way.
RTBF protects sex offenders, politicians, and bad doctors from

the public record
Zachary Graves, Digital Director and Policy Analyst at R Street Institute, August
18, 2014
"The dangerous proliferation of the 'right to be forgotten,'" Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zachary-graves/the-dangerousproliferati_b_5507477.html (accessed 10/3/2014)
At the least, the case may confirm widespread fears that the ruling by Europe's
highest court, which applies even to links that are factual and in the public record,
could spread a newfound "right to be forgotten" across the globe, opening the door
for disgraced politicians, sex offenders, and malpractice-burdened doctors to wipe
their slate clean.
Page 32
Right To Be Forgotten Protects Evil People

RTBF allows corrupt politicians and violent criminals to evade
public scrutiny
Douglas Ernst, staff writer for Washington Times, July 11, 2014
"Politicians, criminals using right-to-be-forgotten law EU courts forced upon

Google," The Washington Times,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/11/politicians-criminals-using-rightbe-forgotten-law/ (accessed 10/4/2014)
Europes courts forced Google to honor new right to be forgotten laws in May, and
now theyre being embraced by scandal-ridden politicians and violent criminals.
Google has received hundreds-of-thousands of requests to take down content since
the legal ruling that the technology giant asserts is wrong.
Empirically, right to be forgotten rules protect sex offenders

The Local, September 4, 2014
"'Right to be forgotten' censors Fritzl story," The Local (Austria),

http://www.thelocal.at/20140904/right-to-be-forgotten-censors-fritzl-story (accessed
10/2/2014)
The first results relating to Austria are now being censored, according to a report
from the British tabloid, The Daily Mail. The Mail reports that searches leading to
one of their articles from May 2009 on the Austrian incest rapist Josef Fritzl has now
been officially omitted from search results.
Page 33
Right To Be Forgotten Enables Totalitarianism

Russia proves that totalitarian states will exploit the right to
be forgotten, creating a defacto ban on web sites within their
countries
Molly Schwartz, associate fellow at R Street Institute focusing on open data,
government transparency and the politics of information, September 2, 2014
"The right to be forgotten and the quagmire of global Internet regulation," R Street,
http://www.rstreet.org/2014/09/02/the-right-to-be-forgotten-and-the-quagmire-ofglobal-internet-regulation/ (accessed 10/2/2014)
There are already clear indicators and examples that some governments are moving
toward tighter regulation of the Internet. Within the past year, Russia has codified
existing police practices into law by passing legislation that blocks websites,
restricts electronic foreign financial transactions, heaps a series of new regulations
on popular blogs and allows the government to put people in prison for retweeting
extremist material. Most recently, the Duma passed a law that restricts the
personal data of Russian citizens from being stored on servers outside of Russia
which, if enforced, will effectively ban the use of websites ranging from Facebook to
Amazon unless they locate all data centers in Russia. The Russian government has
wasted no time capitalizing on the right to be forgotten ruling to further censor
the global Internet.
Right to be forgotten risks allowing human rights abusers to

escape accountability
Eduardo Bertoni, Global Clinical Professor at New York University School of Law
and Director of the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression at University of
Palermo School of Law in Argentina, September 24, 2014
"The Right to Be Forgotten: An Insult to Latin American History," Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eduardo-bertoni/the-right-to-beforgotten_b_5870664.html (accessed 10/2/2014)
Recently, I was discussing with fellow colleagues from Latin America the
implications of the decision of the European Union's Court of Justice that establishes
the "right to be forgotten." One of them pointed out that the content of this "right"
notwithstanding, the name itself was an affront to Latin America; rather than
promoting this type of erasure, we have spent the past few decades in search of the
truth regarding what occurred during the dark years of the military dictatorships. My
colleague certainly had a valid argument. If those who were involved in massive
human rights violations could solicit a search engine (Google, Yahoo, or any other)
to make that information inaccessible, claiming, for example, that the information is
extemporaneous, it would be an enormous insult to our history (to put it lightly).
The right to be forgotten results in de facto censorship,

causing news stories to vanish
Danny Sullivan, founding editor of Marketingland and Search Engine Land, July 2,
2014
Page 34
"Thanks To 'Right To Be Forgotten,' Google Now Censors The Press In The EU,
Marketingland, http://marketingland.com/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-censorship-89783
But the EU action is arguably a de facto censorship of the press. News stories are
being made to disappear without any court review. Instead, Google seems to be
following the letter of the new EU mandate and rubber-stamping any reasonable
request that comes along.
Page 35
Right To Be Forgotten Enables Totalitarianism

Totalitarian nations are already exploiting right to be forgotten
laws to censor critical information
Zachary Graves, Digital Director and Policy Analyst at R Street Institute, August 18,
2014
"The dangerous proliferation of the 'right to be forgotten,'" Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zachary-graves/the-dangerousproliferati_b_5507477.html (accessed 10/3/2014)
The Russian Public Chamber has already submitted a recommendation to the
Russian Parliament calling for the introduction of a right to be forgotten that would
affect not only Russian search engines, but also foreign ones like Google and Yahoo.
Countries like China and Korea are also seeking to assert their right to censor the
global Internet.
Withdrawing articles constitutes censorship and the rewriting

of history
La Quadrature Du Net and Reporters without Borders, September
26, 2014
"Recommendations on the Right to Be Forgotten," Reporters without Borders,
http://en.rsf.org/union-europeenne-recommendations-on-the-right-to-be-26-092014,47026.html (accessed 10/2/2014)
At the European level, a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on 16 June
2013 rejected a request by two Polish lawyers for the suppression of a newspaper
article that had been deemed libellous by a Polish court but continued to be
accessible on the newspapers website. Seeking a balance between the right to
defend ones reputation and the right to information, the European Court ruled that
withdrawal of the article would amount to censorship and to rewriting history.
These decisions bring welcome definition to the scope that should be given to the
exception for journalism. Provisions on the protection of privacy should not affect
freedom of expression. They should continue to be inapplicable to all editorial
content and all information of public interest.
Page 36
Right To Be Forgotten Laws Are Ineffective

Country-to-country inconsistencies defeat the effectiveness of
a right to be forgotten
Al Albawa Business News, August 31, 2014
"The prospects for a global 'right to be forgotten,'" Alabawa.com,

http://www.albawaba.com/business/google-personal-presence--600365 (accessed
10/2/2014)
To begin with, the right to be forgotten is hard to implement, as Google could
censor its search results in Europe, but users elsewhere in the world could see that
information and just send it to anyone in Europe. Additionally, with basic technical
know-how or by downloading an unblock product, anyone can change his/her
country IP address and browse the web without local limitations just like users in
Arabian Gulf countries do all the time to access blocked sites. Every country, or
region, will ask Google to censor different information and the result will be a mess
of censored/uncensored information by country that will not provide global removal
of information.
Authorities lack competence to determine limits of public

knowledge
26, 2014

Similarly, the authorities in charge of protecting privacy do not have the required
competence or legitimacy for examining such requests and determining the limits
that should be set on freedom of expression. As Frances Constitutional Council said
in its ruling of 10 June 2009 on the HADOPI law, legislators cannot give a state
agency, even an independent one, the power to restrict the right to express oneself
freely.
People can still find private information on individuals even if a

search engine takes it down
Peter Gearin, Assistant Editor at Sydney Morning Herald, September 29, 2014
"European 'right to be forgotten' ruling should not make people disappear online,"
Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/european-right-to-beforgotten-ruling-should-not-make-people-disappear-online-20140924-10d2jk.html
Google is currently holding free public forums across Europe to gather expert views
to help the company decide how it should deal with the issue. But even for those
the ruling was supposed to help, it is not a perfect solution it only affects
European-based search engines and doesn't force a site to permanently delete a
page, so anyone wishing to disappear can still be found.
Page 37

Notification of removal generates negative publicity, defeating
the entire purpose of the removal
Luciano Floridi, director of research and professor of philosophy and ethics of
information at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, September 29,
2014
"Google ethics tour: should readers be told a link has been removed?" The
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/29/google-ethics-tourright-to-be-forgotten
Suppose that the notification has been discussed and the link has been removed,
should the public be informed about such removal? It may seem a mere
technicality, but unpack it and a significant difficulty surfaces. Currently, if you
search for Mario Costeja, you are informed that Some results may have been
removed under data protection law in Europe. The public notification seems similar
to the process search engines use when asked to remove content that infringes
copyright laws. Yet publicising the fact that some information about someone has
been de-linked is problematic. After all, being told that an individual has gone
through the effort of asking Google to remove a link to some personal information
may raise some serious suspicions, which may damage that individual as much as,
and perhaps even more than, the original information itself.
Web businesses will exploit the right to be forgotten by selling

services to retrieve information
2014
And there is an ironic twist: if information about a removed link is made public, it
can be exploited to create services that can re-link the de-linked material. Above all,
it becomes a tempting invitation to look for the same personal information using a
search engine that is not based in Europe, such as google.com.
Companies can ignore, publicize, or inconsistently grant

requests
Dianne Depra, staff writer for Tech Times, July 27, 2014
"Implementation of right to be forgotten becoming nightmare for Google," Tech

Times, http://www.techtimes.com/articles/11250/20140727/implementation-of-rightto-be-forgotten-becoming-nightmare-for-google.htm
European Union (EU) regulators are not pleased with how Google is handling the
requests. This is in part to the fact that the search engine has refused some of the
requests and, in part, because Google is informing sites whenever a link of theirs is
taken down from search results. There is also the issue that Google is actually only
taking down links from European domains. This means use any other search engine
Page 38
not based in Europe, like Google.com in the U.S., and the juicy bits that were
requested to be forgotten can still be accessed.
Page 39
Right to Be Forgotten Laws Are Ineffective

Global technology defeats the purpose of RTBFpeople can
just access information from somewhere else
Brid-Aine Parnell, Technology Reporter for the Register, July 30, 2014
"British Lords: Euro 'right to be forgotten' ruling 'unreasonable and unworkable',"

The Register,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/30/uk_lords_right_to_be_forgotten_report/
Although this was a short inquiry, it is crystal clear that the neither the 1995
Directive, nor the CJEUs interpretation of it reflects the incredible advancement in
technology that we see today, over 20 years since the Directive was drafted, said
Baroness Prashar, chair of the subcommittee. Anyone anywhere in the world now
has information at the touch of a button, and that includes detailed personal
information about people in all countries of the globe.
The case-by-case nature of claims causes unpredictability in

how RTBF plays out
Ramiro Alvarez Ugarte, former senior attorney at the Association for Civil Rights
(Asociacin por los Derechos Civiles) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, September 18,
2014
"Right to Be Forgotten: A Win for Argentina's Lawsuit-Happy Celebrities?" Global

Voices Advocacy, http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2014/09/18/right-to-beforgotten-a-win-for-argentinas-lawsuit-happy-celebrities/ (accessed 10/2/2014)
The decision does not provide clear categorical definitions on when the RTBF does
and does not apply. So public officials may or may be not capable of making claims
under the RTBF. I can think of cases where such claims could be successful, e.g., if a
low-ranking public official wants to remove embarrassing information that has
nothing to do with his office versus cases where those claims would not be
successful. Or if a candidate running for election wanted to eliminate information on
past wrong-doings. However, these cases themselves are not that clear and their
resolution depends on the way local freedom of expression criteria plays out when
applied to this new right. Its kind of unpredictable the actual outcomes remain to
be seen.
Page 40

RTBF produces absurd results like the removal of outdated
positive information
Roy Greenslade, Professor of journalism at City University and former editor of
the Daily Mirror, September 11, 2014
"Google takes down newspaper's positive story about an artist," The Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/sep/11/right-to-be-forgottenlocal-newspapers (accessed 10/2/2014)
The Worcester News has been the victim of one of the more bizarre examples of the
European court's so-called "right to be forgotten" ruling. The paper was told by
Google that it was removing from its search archive an article in praise of a young
artist. Yes, you read that correctly. A positive story published five years ago about
Dan Roach, who was then on the verge of gaining a degree in fine art, had to be
taken down.
Page 41
Other Concerns Outweigh Privacy

Privacy rights are an illusion
Walter E. Block, professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, July 13,
2013
"There is no right to privacy," LewRockwell.com,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/walter-e-block/there-is-no-right-to-privacy/
There is no right to privacy; none at all. It is not a negative right, all of which are
supported by libertarian theory; e.g., the right not to be molested, murdered, raped,
etc. Rather, the so called right to privacy is a so called positive right, as in the
right to food, clothing, shelter, welfare, etc. That is, it is no right at all; rather the
right to privacy is an aspect of wealth. As Murray N. Rothbard (The Ethics of
Liberty, chapter 16) made clear, there is only a right to private property, not
privacy.
Privacy rights can never outweigh matters of public interest

John Paul Stevens, former Justice of U.S. Supreme Court, May 21, 2001
"Bartnicki v. Vopper," Legal Information Institute,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1687.ZO.html (accessed 10/5/2014)
In this case, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in
publishing matters of public importance. As Warren and Brandeis stated in their
classic law review article: The right of privacy does not prohibit any publication of
matter which is of public or general interest. The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev.
193, 214 (1890). One of the costs associated with participation in public affairs is an
attendant loss of privacy.
Risk of exposure is part of public and community life


Exposure of the self to others in varying degrees is a concomitant of life in a
civilized community. The risk of this exposure is an essential incident of life in a
society which places a primary value on freedom of speech and of press. Freedom
of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all
issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of
society to cope with the exigencies of their period. Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S., at
388 (quoting Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102 (1940)).
Page 42
Images and Information Protected by First

Amendment
Even if obtained illegally, images and information are still
protected by the first amendment
We think it clear that parallel reasoning requires the conclusion that a strangers
illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech
about a matter of public concern. The months of negotiations over the proper level
of compensation for teachers at the Wyoming Valley West High School were
unquestionably a matter of public concern, and respondents were clearly engaged
in debate about that concern. That debate may be more mundane than the
Communist rhetoric that inspired Justice Brandeis classic opinion in Whitney v.
California, 274 U.S., at 372, but it is no less worthy of constitutional protection.
Restricting access to privately owned images is unlikely to be

held as constitutional
Lauren Walker, Reporter for Newsweek, September 3, 2014
"Are Revenge Porn Laws Going Too Far?" Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/arerevenge-porn-laws-going-too-far-268292 (accessed 10/6/2014)
In 2013, California decided that taking an intimate and confidential picture or video
and distributing it with the intention of causing serious emotional distress to the
victim is disorderly conduct. In reaction, Lee Rowland of the ACLUs Speech,
Privacy and Technology Project told NPR the reality is that revenge porn laws tend
to criminalize the sharing of nude images that people lawfully own. That treads on
very thin ice constitutionally.
Restricting access based on perpetrator actions undermines

free speech and is met with scrutiny by courts
Liz Halloran, National Public Radio writer and editor, March 6, 2014
"Race to Stop 'Revenge Porn' Raises Free Speech Worries," NPR It's All Politics,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/03/06/286388840/race-to-stop-revengeporn-raises-free-speech-worries (accessed 10/5/2014)
Legislation that can withstand court scrutiny, Rowland says, should include four
main elements: It must designate that the perpetrator had malicious intent, that his
or her action caused actual harm, that he or she acted knowingly without consent,
and that the victim had an expectation of privacy. "Without those safeguards," she
said, "these laws face an uphill battle in the courts. Not only are they
unconstitutional, they are unwise there simply isn't another example I'm aware of
where there are criminal penalties for sharing otherwise lawful speech." Rowland
gives this example: If an Arizona bill currently being considered were to pass, a
person who receives an unsolicited text of a nude selfie and shows it to a friend
could be charged with a crime.
Page 43
Free Speech Outweighs Privacy

Sullivan demonstrates freedom of expression outweighs
privacy

Our opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), reviewed many
of the decisions that settled the general proposition that freedom of expression
upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment. Id., at 269; see Roth v.
United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957); Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270
(1941); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 (1931). Those cases all relied on
our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues
should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, New York Times, 376 U.S., at 270;
see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353,
365 (1937); Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375376 (1927) (Brandeis, J.,
concurring); see also Roth, 354 U.S., at 484; Stromberg, 283 U.S., at 369; Bridges,
314 U.S., at 270. It was the overriding importance of that commitment that
supported our holding that neither factual error nor defamatory content, nor a
combination of the two, sufficed to remove the First Amendment shield from
criticism of official conduct. Id., at 273; see also NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445
(1963); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962); Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 (1947);
Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 342, 343, n. 5, 345 (1946); Bridges, 314 U.S.,
at 270.
First amendment right to publish outweighs privacy

David Horowitz, Executive Director of Media Coalition, Inc., February 1, 2014
"Media Coalition memo in opposition to H.B. 1665," Mediacoalition.org,

http://mediacoalition.org/files/MO_HB1665_memo.pdf (accessed 10/5/2014)
Privacy is an important right but the Supreme Court has held that it is not a
sufficiently compelling interest to overcome the First Amendment right to free
speech. The Court has often struck down laws and court orders that barred speech
about a criminal proceeding in order to protect a defendants privacy. In Cox
Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, the Supreme Court struck down a statute allowing a
rape victim to seek damages for the publishing of his or her name. Justice White
wrote, At the very least, the First and Fourteenth Amendments will not allow
exposing the press to liability for truthfully publishing information released to the
public in official court records. 420 U.S. 469, 496. The Court again found the First
Amendment right to publish outweighed privacy interests when it struck down a
West Virginia law that barred publishing the name of a minor being adjudicated in
juvenile court. Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979). See also,
Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court, 430 U. S. 308 (1977); Landmark
Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978); Nebraska Press Assn. v.
Stuart, 427 US 539 (1976).
Free expression is necessary to realize all other rights

Milana Knezevic, journalist at Index on Censorship, March 20, 2013
Page 44
"Why is access to freedom of expression important?" Index on Censorship,

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/03/why-is-access-to-freedom-of-expressionimportant/ (accessed 10/6/2014)
Why is access to freedom of expression important? Freedom of expression is a
fundamental human right. It also underpins most other rights and allows them to
flourish. The right to speak your mind freely on important issues in society, access
information and hold the powers that be to account, plays a vital role in the healthy
development process of any society.
Page 45

Courts reject privacy claims when reporters are seeking
publicly valuable information
John A. Bussian and Paul J. Levine, members of Florida Bar Media &
Communications Law Committee, August 2004

"Invasion of Privacy and the Media: The Right 'To Be Let Alone,'" THe Florida Bar,
Reporter's Handbook,
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/RHandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676
f0053b606/dfc00ac22467b7f5852569cb004cbc2a!OpenDocument (accessed
10/4/2014)
In a more recent case with similar facts, Prime Time Live investigated reports that
an eye clinic was performing unnecessary procedures. Desnick v. Capital Cities/ABC,
851 F. Supp. 303 (N.D. Ill. 1994). The complaint alleged that the reporters promised
not to engage in "surveillance ambush journalism," but the defendants hired
"undercover" patients to visit the clinic with concealed audio and video recorders.
The plaintiff sued for trespass, intrusion, fraud, breach of contract, and (in an
unrelated matter) defamation. The court dismissed each of the invasion of privacy
theories, leaving only the breach of contract (for breaking the no-ambush promise)
and defamation claims.
Courts affirm the medias first amendment rights even when

behaving fraudulently to obtain information
John A. Bussian and Paul J. Levine, members of Florida Bar Media &
Communications Law Committee, August 2004
"Invasion of Privacy and the Media: The Right 'To Be Let Alone,'" THe Florida Bar,
Reporter's Handbook,
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/RHandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676
f0053b606/dfc00ac22467b7f5852569cb004cbc2a!OpenDocument (accessed
10/4/2014)
In Food Lion Inc. V. Capital Cities/ABC Inc., 27 Med. L. Rptr. 2409 (4th Cir. 1999), the
plaintiff attempted to disguise an invasion of privacy claim as state law fraud, duty
of loyalty, and trespass claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the trial court judgment that ABC committed fraud and unfair trade
practices and that misrepresentation of a resume alone is not grounds for a jury
finding of trespass. However, the Court did affirm the jury finding that defendants
trespassed against the plaintiff for newsgathering on the job, when the ABC
employees were said to have been hired to preserve Food Lion's confidences.
Finally, the court affirmed the trial court s refusal to allow Food Lion to recover
damages that essentially flowed from a telecast whose truth was not challenged by
Food Lion in the litigation.
RTBF needs an exception for public interest journalism

26, 2014
Page 46
Given a certain desire on the part of European Union member states to follow up on
the EUCJ ruling by considerably reinforcing the right to be forgotten and the right to
deletion, it is important to restrict these rights in order to protect freedom of
expression. The rules must be amended to reinforce the exception for journalism by
extending it to all editorial content and other information of public interest. After
this legislative clarification has been enacted, reconciliation of the right to privacy
and the freedom of expression can be done in a balanced manner under national
and international law and the relevant jurisprudence (for example, in France, article
9 of the civil code or articles 226-1 and 226-2 of the penal code), while respecting
the existing guarantees of freedom of expression (such as those in the 1881 media
law).
Page 47

Restrictions on free speech disproportionately hurt minorities
and the marginalized
Milana Knezevic, journalist at Index on Censorship, March 20, 2013
"Why is access to freedom of expression important?" Index on Censorship,

http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/03/why-is-access-to-freedom-of-expressionimportant/ (accessed 10/6/2014)
The lack of access to freedom of expression is a problem that particularly affects the
already marginalised that is, minorities facing discrimination both in developed
and developing countries, from LGBT people in African countries, to disabled people
in Western Europe. While the scale of their struggles varies greatly, the principle is
the same: within the context of their society, these groups face greater barriers to
freedom of expression than the majority. If they are unable to communicate their
ideas, views, worries and needs effectively, means they are often excluded from
meaningful participation in society, and from the opportunity to better their own
circumstances.
Digital communication greatly expands the opportunities for

democratic participation; protecting free speech rights is key
to this expansion
Jack M. Balkin, Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law
School, 2004
"Digital Speech and Democratic Culture," New York University Law Review vol. 79,
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/telecom/digitalspeechanddemocraticculture.pdf
The digital age provides a technological infrastructure that greatly expands the
possibilities for individual participation in the growth and spread of culture and thus
greatly expands the possibilities for the realization of a truly democratic culture. But
the same technologies also can produce new methods of control that can limit
democratic cultural participation. Therefore, free speech valuesinteractivity, mass
participation, and the ability to modify and transform culturemust be protected
through technological design and through administrative and legislative regulation
of technology, as well as through the more traditional method of judicial creation
and recognition of constitutional rights. Increasingly, freedom of speech will depend
on the design of the technological infrastructure that supports the system of free
expression and secures widespread democratic participation.
Page 48

We must be especially scrutinous of protecting free speech in
the digital age, or we will squander its opportunities for mass
participation
Jack M. Balkin, Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law
School, 2004
"Digital Speech and Democratic Culture," New York University Law Review vol. 79,
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/telecom/digitalspeechanddemocraticculture.pdf
Freedom of speech is rapidly becoming the key site for struggles over the legal and
constitutional protection of capital in the information age, and these conflicts will
shape the legal definition of freedom of speech. The digital revolution offers
unprecedented opportunities for creating a vibrant system of free expression. But it
also presents new dangers for freedom of speech, dangers that will be realized
unless we accommodate ourselves properly to the changes the digital age brings in
its wake. The emerging conflicts over capital and property are very real. If they are
resolved in the wrong way, they will greatly erode the system of free expression and
undermine much of the promise of the digital age for the realization of a truly
participatory culture.
Removal should be balanced against free press and other

rights
2014
Before Google decides to de-link some information published by Le Monde, for
example, it should consult the newspaper to check whether the removal of the link
clashes against the freedom of the press or other rights. To put it more technically:
notification should be ex ante. It seems a sensible idea, and most people agreed
upon it.
Page 49
Freedom of Speech Key to

Democracy (1/3)
Government restrictions hinder democratic communication,
which is important to build identities and regulate political
agency.
Renato Francisquini, PhD candidate in Political Science at the University of So
Paulo, Brazil, June 2014, Freedom of Expression and Communicative Equality: The
Case for Regulation, p. 36-37
In contemporary societies the mass media play a central role in societies'
symbolic reproduction; mediated discourses, be them informative or
entertainment, form opinions, build identities and regulate political
agency. Our comprehension of politics and society fundamentally depends
on mass media's filters, which define the dynamics of inclusion-exclusion
of legitimate voices. The media frames the content and the form of what
circulates in the public sphere (Rummens, 2012). From a certain point of
view, the development of IT technologies and the spread of democratic
practices have made it easier than ever to establish communication both
widely and effectively. Yet some theoretically accepted concepts and
legally enforced norms tend to restrict rather than to support democratic
communication. I refer to views, such as the one espoused by the So Paulo Press
Association, which assigns media and other corporations the same rights assigned
to individuals.
Protecting freedom of speech is necessary to enhance public

deliberation, which is crucial for democracy.
Case for Regulation, p. 40
A different account of freedom of expression rests on the idea that
protecting free speech is a form of enhancing public deliberation.
According to this perspective what is essential is not that everyone shall
speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said (Meiklejohn, 1948:
26). Constitutional protection to free speech is a form of avoiding the
mutilation of society's thinking process rather than a protection of
individual rights to free expression. He proposes that the traditional
model of town meetings found in some parts of the United States is a
pattern from which one can assess the quality of public debate in society
Page 50
as a whole. Thus, this version highlights the protection of the listeners ability to
receive information and opinions from different sources in order to make wise
decisions. According to this argument, a system that gives people opportunity to
speak but does not offer the necessary tools to think, will be full of empty speech
and reckless voting (Gastil, 2008)
Freedom of expression is crucial to remove oppressive regimes

by spreading democratic discourse.
Jeffrey Ghannam, independent media consultant, attorney, and veteran journalist,
February 3, 2011, Social Media in the Arab World: Leading up to the Uprisings of
2011, p. 4
The Arab world has experienced an awakening of free expression that has
now entered the body politic of Tunisia and Egypt and has helped break
down the stranglehold of state-sponsored media and information
monopolies in those countries. Indeed, from Morocco to Bahrain, the Arab
world has witnessed the rise of an independent vibrant social media and
steadily increasing citizen engagement on the Internet that is expected to
attract 100 million Arab users by 2015. These social networks inform,
mobilize, entertain, create communities, increase transparency, and seek
to hold governments accountable. To peruse the Arab social media sites, blogs,
online videos, and other digital platforms is to witness what is arguably the most
dramatic and unprecedented improvement in freedom of expression, association,
and access to information in contemporary Arab history.
Page 51

Democracy (2/3)
In a democracy, the courts have argued that self-governance
allows freedom of speech to be the lynchpin in maintaining
democratic institutions.
Robert Post, Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law at University of
California Berkeley, 2000, Reconciling Theory and Doctrine in First Amendment
Jurisprudence, p. 2366-2367
If the theory of the marketplace of ideas tends to efface the social
practices by which it is in fact sustained, thereby inducing a free-floating
image of pure communication, the democratic theory has not suffered any
such liability. It has never been subject to the same mystification as has the
marketplace of ideas. We instantly recognize self-government as a discrete
and embodied social practice, and for this reason courts applying
democratic theory have been clear that the First Amendment protects only
speech pertinent to self-determination. Thus, for example, in the
important early decision of Thornhill v. Alabama, the Court asserted that
because freedom of speech was essential to "the maintenance of
democratic institutions," it embraced "the liberty to discuss publicly and
truthfully all matters of public concern" so that "members of society" could "cope
with the exigencies of their period."'
In a participatory environment, the state must be prohibited

from stifling the discourse of the citizenry to form relevant
democratic public opinion.
Jurisprudence, p. 2367-2368
The alternative account of democracy, which I shall call the "participatory" theory,
does not locate self-governance in mechanisms of decision making, but rather in the
processes through which citizens come to identify a government as their own.
According to this theory, democracy requires that citizens experience their state as
an example of authentic self-determination. How such an experience can be
sustained presents something of a puzzle, because citizens can expect to disagree
with many of the specific actions of their government. The solution to this puzzle
must be that citizens in a democracy experience their authorship of the
state in ways that are anterior to the making of particular decisions. The
participatory account postulates that it is a necessary precondition for
this experience that a state be structured so as to subordinate its actions
Page 52
to public opinion, and that a state be constitutionally prohibited from

preventing its citizens from participating in the communicative processes
relevant to the formation of democratic public opinion. If, following the
usage of the Court, we term these communicative processes "public discourse,"
then the participatory approach views the function of the First Amendment
to be the safeguarding of public discourse from regulations that are
inconsistent with democratic legitimacy. State restrictions on public discourse
can be inconsistent with democratic legitimacy in two distinct ways. To the extent
that the state cuts off particular citizens from participation in public discourse, it pro
tanto negates its claim to democratic legitimacy with respect to such citizens. To the
extent that the state regulates public discourse so as to reflect the values and
priorities of some vision of collective identity, it preempts the very democratic
process by which collective identity is to be determined.
Page 53

Democracy (3/3)
Democracy needs free speech to flourish; theorists argue that
free speech is integral in preserving democracy.
Rebecca Tushnet, Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center, 2004, Copy
This Essay: How Fair Use Doctrine Harms Free Speech and How Copying Serves It, p.
539
Briefly, democratic self-governance builds on Alexander Meiklejohns
classic defense of the First Amendment as guarantor of democracy. His
definition of democracy, however, meant that only political speechspeech about
government and what it should or shouldnt be doingwas protected from
suppression. His theory famously had trouble explaining why art and literature
should be protected, except as poor stepchildren of political speech. Meiklejohn was
also more concerned with speech than with speakers; as long as everything worth
saying got said, it didnt matter whether everyone had a chance to speak. In the
Meiklejohnian tradition, the autonomy component of free speech is less important
than its instrumental componentindividual speech deserves protection only to
further the goal of enriching public debate. Theorists after Meiklejohn have
expanded the concept of free speechs role in preserving democracy in
two major ways. First, participation in public discussion is important, both
to the individual and to the society that values each individual. Second,
democracy requires more than democratically elected rulers; it requires democratic
culture. Popular culture is worth the First Amendments protection not
only, and not mostly, because it indirectly affects political attitudes but
because it constitutes a major part of modern citizens environment,
shaping how we think and act. Our lives are lived with the constant
intrusion of multiple media productions, and many of our interactions with
other people involve what weve been watching, listening to, or even
reading.
Page 54
Freedom of Speech Good for

Adolescents (1/2)
Freedom of expression applies to minors too, bolstering their
autonomy, ability to participate in the political sphere and
sense of self-fulfillment.
Mary-Rose Papandrea, Assistant Professor at Boston College Law School, October
20, 2008, Student Speech Rights in the Digital Age, p. 1076-1077
The theoretical bases for a right to freedom of expression do not logically
exclude minors from the First Amendments purview or even explain why
minors, particularly adolescents, are entitled to lesser or weaker free
speech rights on or off school grounds. Granting minors free speech
rights promotes the principles animating the right to free speech under
the First Amendment: (1) the promotion of democratic self- government;
(2) the search for truth in the marketplace of ideas; and (3) the fostering
of autonomy and self-fulfillment. All three ideas justify robust free speech
rights for adolescents. To some, minors have a weak claim to free speech rights
under the self-government rationale of the First Amendment for the simple reason
that they cannot vote and therefore are not meaningfully involved in democracy. For
example, Kevin Saunders has argued that [t]he importance of free speech to selfgovernment is that those who are able to make the decisions have all the
information and will be able to convince each other of the wisest course. Children
are not among those who make the decisions, so it is at least questionable how
strongly the First Amendment, at least on this justification, applies to children. There
are several responses to this objection. First, political arguments minors make
can have much more influence on the democratic process than other forms
of adult speech that receive full constitutional protection, such as artistic
speech. Politically aware young people can have an 402 impact on the
political dialogue and influence the way their parents and other adults
vote. Students are particularly likely to provide their parents and other
adults with useful information regarding the operation of their schools
and their educational experience.
Adolescents should have freedom of speech to bolster political

education and their ability to contribute in the political world
peacefully.
Page 55
Although students may not have the right to vote themselves, they
certainly can play an important part in educating adults who do. In
addition, one goal of public education should be to prepare minors to be
political actors by training them to think rationally and critically. Without
some education about how to exercise their free speech rights, students
would enter the adult world without the necessary skills to contribute to
the political world. As Judge Posner explained in a case granting preliminary
injunction against a violent video game law, it is obvious that [minors]
must be allowed the freedom to form their political views . . . before they
turn eighteen, so that their minds are not a blank when they first exercise
the franchise. In addition, public schools play an important role in preparing
students to be democratic actors. As Justice Stevens argued in his dissenting
opinion in New Jersey v. T.L.O., [t]he schoolroom is the first opportunity most
citizens have to experience the power of government. . . . The values they learn
there, they take with them in life.Granting young people free speech rights
can also promote stability by providing an outlet for dissenters.
Page 56
Freedom of Speech Good for

Adolescents (2/2)
Regardless of the need to protect America's youth, content
restrictions on speech presumptively violate the First
Amendment.
Catherine J. Ross, Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington University
Law School, 2000, Anything Goes: Examining the States Interest in Protecting
Children from Controversial Speech , p. 1
Protecting children from contamination by speech has become the focus of national
attention. The content of the protected speech that the state seeks to
regulate is as varied as the form of communications targeted, including
the allegedly indecent, sacrilegious, and violent in media ranging from
books to the Internet. Echoing similar crusades to protect children from virtually
every new form of entertainment over the last century, contemporary regulatory
efforts to protect children reflect the unique legal status of children and the fragility
of constitutional liberties where their vulnerabilities are invoked. But contentbased restrictions on speech--even in the name of protecting young
people--presumptively violate the First Amendment, which mandates
above all else . . . that government has no power to restrict expression
because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content.
In child custody hearings, threatening speech can exist, but

child-parent speech should be protected.
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law ,
August 30, 2005, Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions,
p. 55
So far, Ive argued that theres generally little reason to treat speech in broken
families differently from speech in intact families. I have assumed that speech in intact families is categorically protected, and I havent returned to the question of
why (and therefore to what extent) such speech should be protected. But if Part III.A
is right, then parent-child free speech rights rest on somewhat different
grounds than other speech rights. Because of childrens greater
vulnerability, lesser maturity, and legal captivity to their parents, I have
argued, the parents interest in self-expression and the childs interest in
learning more information are less forceful here. The main reasons to
protect parent-child speech are (1) the need to maintain government
impartiality between citizens ideologies and religions, (2) the fear that
government action will be influenced by prejudice against an ideology, or
the majoritys or elites desire to entrench their own political views by
Page 57
suppressing rival views, and (3) the danger that restrictions on parentchild speech will handicap certain ideas in the marketplace, both in this
generation and the next. If this is right, these reasons may affect which
parent-child speech should be protected, and which can lose protection
without much danger to these free speech values
Page 58
Freedom of Speech Key to Autonomy

(1/2)
The First Amendment unrestricted is crucial for autonomy and
a sense of self-fulfillment.
Steven J. Heyman, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois
Institute of Technology, 2002, Spheres of Autonomy: Reforming The Content
Neutrality Doctrine in First Amendment Jurisprudence, p. 658
Of course, the First Amendment ensures freedom not only to think as you
will, but also to speak as you think. Both are essential to autonomy.
Through speech, individuals express themselves and realize their inherent
capacities as human beings. Mosley endorses this rationale when it notes that
free speech is necessary to assure self-fulfillment for each individual,
and when it cites Justice Harlans observation in Cohen v. California that the First
Amendment places the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely
into the hands of each of us, not only to promote a more perfect polity,
but also in the belief that no other approach would comport with the
premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system
rests.
Government restrictions on speech impair individual autonomy

and social expression.
Neutrality Doctrine in First Amendment Jurisprudence, p. 658-659
This discussion points to further grounds for the content neutrality doctrine. In one
sense, content refers to the thoughts and feelings within a speakers mind; in
another sense, it refers to the same ideas and emotions as they are expressed
through speech. Government impairs individual autonomy and selfrealization when it restricts speech because it disapproves of the fact that
the speaker holds certain thoughts or feelings, or because it disapproves
of the decision to express them. Even when the government restricts
speech for other reasons, the restriction violates the speakers right to
autonomy and self-fulfillment if those reasons are inadequate ones.
Likewise, the First Amendment bars government from compelling citizens
to speak, for this violates the fundamental rule that a speaker has the
autonomy to choose the content of his own message. At first glance, it
might seem that the notion of speaker autonomy is capable of supplying a complete
justification for freedom of thought and expression. As Mill concedes, however,
Page 59
when a person communicates with others, she affects others as well as herself.
Thus, a full account of free speech and of content neutrality must extend
beyond the idea of speaker autonomy and include other elements, such as
the importance of the speech, the freedom of other individuals to hear it,
and the social dimension of expression.
Page 60
Freedom of Speech Key to Autonomy

(2/2)
Student expression, even if it challenges school authority, is
central for students to learn and understand democratic
values.
Justice Brandeis perhaps expressed this best in his concurrence in Whitney, where
he stated that [t]hose who won our independence . . . [knew] that fear breeds
repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government;
[and] that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed
grievances and proposed remedies. Much student expression involves speech
that poses some challenge to school authority. By calling school officials
douchebags or creating a video mocking a teacher, the students vent
their frustrations with the authority figures in their lives. Allowing the
marketplace of ideas to flourish at school and on the Internet helps
prepare students to be participants in democracy that cherishes the free
exchange of ideas and diversity of viewpoint. Given 408 that young people
spend the bulk of their time in school acquiring knowledge and developing
their belief systems, the theory of the marketplace of ideas has
particularly strong currency for them.
The government is using spatial tactics to attempt to eliminate

demonstrations at abortion clinics and restrict that facet of
speech.
Timothy Zick, Associate Professor at St. John's University School of Law, 2006,
Speech and Spatial Tactics, p. 598
The use of spatial tactics is not limited to political demonstrations. Social
and political protest have also been geometrically confined and restrained
in other situations. Indeed, spatial tactics first arose as a response to
demonstrations outside abortion and other public health clinics. In this
context, as in others, government has relied upon spatial tactics to
confine and control speakers who wish to convey upsetting and offensive
messages. Demonstrators at abortion clinics have utilized provocative
language, and sometimes even resorted to violence, to urge patients to
reconsider their decision to have an abortion. Incidents of physical violence or
property destruction are, of course, subject to prosecution under the criminal laws.
Page 61
Officials have relied instead on prophylactic spatial tactics to defuse the

environment around abortion clinics.
Page 62
Marketplace of Ideas Good (1/2)

The marketplace of ideas is worth protecting; government
regulations on speech should be avoided if it teeters that line
of Constitutionality.
Jurisprudence, p. 2363
The theory of the marketplace of ideas focuses on "the truth-seeking
function"' of the First Amendment. It extends the shelter of constitutional
protection to speech so that we can better understand the world in which
we live. It would follow from the theory, therefore, that at a minimum the
Constitution ought to be concerned with all communication conveying
ideas relevant to our understanding the world, whether or not these ideas
are political in nature. This does not mean, of course, that the Constitution would
prohibit all regulation of such communication. But it does imply that regulation of
such communication ought to be evaluated according to the constitutional
standards of the theory.
Governmental authority does not allow an atmosphere of

cooperation to engage in the marketplace of ideas.
Jurisprudence, p. 2365
Although First Amendment doctrine presently understands "the truthseeking function" of the marketplace of ideas to flow directly from the
communicative properties of speech, in fact "truth-seeking" requires much
more. It requires an important set of shared social practices: the capacity
to listen and to engage in self-evaluation, as well as a commitment to the
conventions of reason, which in turn entail aspirations toward objectivity,
disinterest, civility, and mutual respect. Thus John Dewey once remarked
that rational deliberation depends upon "the possibility of conducting
disputes, controversies and conflicts as cooperative undertakings in which
both parties learn by giving the other a chance to express itself," and that
this cooperation is inconsistent with one party conquering another "by forceful
suppression ... a suppression which is none the less one of violence when it takes
place by psychological means of ridicule, abuse, intimidation, instead of by overt
imprisonment or in concentration camps." The social practices necessary for a
marketplace of ideas to serve a "truth-seeking function" are perhaps most
explicitly embodied in the culture of scholarship inculcated in universities
and professional academic disciplines. Certainly this culture is what
Page 63
Charles Peirce had in mind when he advocated "the method of science" as

a preferred avenue toward truth, a method that he explicitly contrasted
with the "method of authority" which employs the "organized force" of the
state to suppress "liberty of speech."
Page 64
Marketplace of Ideas Good (2/2)

Choice in expression is good for society.
Rebecca Tushnet, Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center, 2000,
Copyright as a Model for Free Speech Law: What Copyright Has in Common with
Anti- Pornography Laws, Campaign Finance Reform, and Telecommunications
Regulation, p. 8
In general, the First Amendment protects even speech which is not original to the
speaker; and the Supreme Court has stated that it protects individuals' right "not
only to advocate their cause but also to select what they believe to be the most
effective means to advocate their cause." "[A]s we know from the example of
publishing houses, movie theaters, bookstores and Reader's Digest, communication
occurs in selecting which speech to copy and distribute no less than in creating the
speech in the first place. Speakers are allowed to choose their preferred
modes of expression because altering expression could well change the
meaning and the impact of the message. Famously, the Supreme Court
protected Paul Cohen's right to wear a jacket proclaiming "Fuck the Draft" in public.
The Court held that the expression can often constitute the idea: "[W]e
cannot indulge in the facile assumption that one can forbid particular
words 'without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the
process. "
Page 65
Oppressive Regimes and Censorship

(1/2)
Oppressive regimes impede on freedom of speech to protect
itself and stifle the opposition by blocking internet access and
even imprisoning journalists.
2011, p. 4
Yet the advances are not without considerable limitations and challenges
posed by authoritarian regimes. Arab governments reactions to social
media have given rise to a battle of the blogosphere as proxies or other
means are used to bypass government firewalls only to have those efforts
meet further government blocking. Government authorities in the region
also have waged widespread crackdowns on bloggers, journalists, civil
society, and human rights activists. Hundreds of Arab activists, writers,
and journalists have faced repercussions because of their online activities.
In Egypt, blogger Abdel Kareem Nabil Soliman, known as Kareem Amer, was
released in November 2010 after more than four years in prison and alleged torture
for his writings that authorities said insulted Islam and defamed Mubarak. Soliman
returned to writing his blog shortly after his release.
Censorship in the Middle East is too vast, fewer regulations are

necessary for the well-being of those citizens.
2011, p. 10
Helmi Noman, who has written on the subject of laws and regulations governing the
Arab cyberspace for the OpenNet Initiative at the Berkman Center for Internet and
Society at Harvard University, said that access control in the Middle East and
North Africa is multilayered: Governments and authorities use different
measures to regulate Internet access and online activities. They include
print and publication laws, penal codes, emergency laws, anti- terrorism
laws, Internet service providers terms and conditions, and
telecommunications decrees. Arab governments also continue to introduce more
restrictive legal, technical and monitoring measures. These governments are
investing in vast infrastructures to enable economic development through the use
of Internet technology while also investing in censorship technologies, which have
been supplied, at least in part, by American firms. Censorship in the region
spans attempts to control political content using technical filtering, laws
Page 66
and regulations, surveillance and monitoring, physical restrictions, and

extra legal harassment and arrests.
Tyrannical regimes control the internet and its access to stifle

discourse, as is seen in North Korea where the internet is
deemed illegal.
Nina Hachigian, formerly on the staff of the National Security Council, is director of
RANDs Center for Asia Pacific Policy, 2002, The Internet and Power in One-Party East
Asian States, p. 43-44
Some one-party regimes, often attempting absolute control of information
in the public sphere, place severe restrictions on public access to the
Internet as well as on availability of online political content. In East Asia,
North Korea (the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea [DPRK]) and Myanmar
(Burma), both military dictatorships with closed economies, have
responded to the dictators dilemma by prohibiting virtually all access
by the general public to the Internet. Internet access. In North Korea,
Internet access is illegal. No Internet service providers (ISPs) and no
North Korean servers allow citizens access to the Internet. Although South
Korea is one of the most wired countries in the world, with Internet penetration
beyond 50 percent, North Korea is one of the least. Thus, only a small handful of
elites in North Korea, with special government dispensation and unusual access to
power, telephone lines, and hardware have Internet access through optical lines
supplied by China.
Page 67
Oppressive Regimes and Censorship

(2/2)
The regulation of speech that occurs is similar to
antidemocratic regimes.
Sam Issacharoff, NYU Law School, October 1, 2006, Fragile Democracies, p. 1450
The prospect of parties that are allowed to exist and recruit members, but
are excluded from the electoral arena and by extension from political
office, leads directly to the question whether democracies may regulate
the political arena on a basis distinct from that underlying the regulation
of speech, association, and assembly generally. Should we be less
concerned about restricting expression under the American First
Amendment, for example when a government imposes a civil penalty
against a speaker by denying him access to elective office than when a
government imposes a criminal penalty against that speaker? Do we think
differently of a society that, while not incarcerating antidemocratic
forces, nonetheless denies them access to the electoral arena as a
platform for antidemocratic agitation?
Page 68
Government Restrictions Unjustly

Displace Demonstrations
The government tactically displaces speech that could be
threatening, even when the protest or demonstration is not
threatening whatsoever and is only oppositional rhetoric.

The tactical displacement of demonstrators and demonstrations is a
phenomenon largely of the past decade or so and has become particularly
prevalent in the past few years. "Zoning" of some sort or another has
been applied to individual public officials, presidential inaugurations, and
major conventions alike. For example, President Bush has been shielded
from numerous organized protests during his campaigns and presidency.
The Secret Service visited locations ahead of time and established "free
speech zones" or "protest zones" where those opposed to the President's
policies were effectively quarantined. Supporters of the President, on the other
hand, were generally permitted much closer access to the candidate. The zones
were effective at keeping protesters at a substantial distance from the President.
They also separated protesters from the media covering the campaign. At least on
some occasions, media personnel were not permitted inside the protest zones, and
protesters were confined to them once inside. Despite their names, the "protest
zones" and "free speech zones" established during President Bush's 2004 campaign
were hardly speech- facilitative. They were not designed to be such.
Regulations on speech have also taken on a tactical stance,

regulating the places in which speech can happen through
tactics like free speech and demonstration designated areas,
an action antithetical to the democratic process. .
Speech at large campaign events, specifically national political
conventions, has been hampered by tactical zones of greater scale. During
the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, for example,
government officials designated a "secured zone" around the stadium
where the convention was to take place. The zone covered-that is it cordoned
off-approximately 185 acres of land surrounding the convention site, and it was in
effect 24 hours a day. Ostensibly to accommodate expressive interests,
officials designated an "Official Demonstration" area for protesters within
this secured zone. The zone effectively kept the protesters 260 yards from
any participating delegate. A district court enjoined the use of this zone, not
because it was intended to suppress expression, but rather because its dimensions
were so disproportionate to the state's interests as to be deemed insufficiently
Page 69
tailored even under the relatively lenient tailoring requirement applied to spatial
regulations. One of the unique and, in terms of expressive freedoms,
disturbing aspects of geometric techniques like zoning is that the
geometry or physics can be refined, in effect making it a more perfect
means of control.
Page 70
Governments Block Internet Access

Internet freedom is on the decline across the world,
particularly in the Middle East, which strips journalists and
bloggers of their freedom of expression.
2011, p. 8
Even in countries that do not block websites, Internet freedom is on the
decline, according to Freedom House. In the Arab region, Internet-based
platforms for information dissemination have had a positive impact, but
the media environment is generally constrained by extremely harsh laws
concerning libel and defamation, the insult of monarchs and public
figures, and emergency rule. Egypt, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen,
where journalists and bloggers have faced serious repercussions for
expressing independent views, have been of particular concern
Chinese regulations on internet usage allows the government

to pursue anyone for the content of their internet-related
activity through a technique of self-censorship.
Asian States, p. 48
Regardless, blocking sites is not Chinas primary mechanism for
controlling content. Rather, the self-censorship that the regime promotes
among individuals and domestic Internet content providers (ICPs) is the
most effective way the regime controls what Chinese viewers see. The
predicate to this self- policing is a tangle of regulations that give the
authorities maximum discretion to pursue almost anyone for almost any
Internet-related activity. Extensive regulations issued in 2000 prohibit
content that subverts state power, disturbs social order, preaches the
teachings of evil cults, distrib- utes pornography, slanders others, or
harms the honor of China. Regulations issued in January require ISPs
immediately to transmit to authorities subversive information they
discover. Despite these rules, however, Chinese surfers casually visiting illegal
sites are very unlikely to face prosecution. Domestic ICPs are aware that, under
these broad rules, security forces can shut them down for an offense at any time.
Page 71
Coupled with government restrictions, lack of infrastructure

for citizens in North Korea and Myanmar prevents use of the
internet and media to stop criticisms of government.
Asian States, p. 44
Moreover, lack of infrastructure investment in both countries compounds
the effect of government restrictions on access. In North Korea, the power
grid is famously unreliable, telecom infrastructure is weak, and personal
computers outside the government number only 100,000. Fixed telephoneline penetration is a dismal 4.8 percent, and mobile telephone service is scarcely
available. Because no North Korean ISPs exist, Internet access requires an
unaffordable long-distance call to China or Japan. IT infrastructure in
Myanmar is also very weak. Only six telephone lines are available per
1,000 people, and the regime is the sole provider of Internet services.
Political content and usage. The government closely controls all traditional
media in North Korea and Myanmar and severely punishes even private
criticisms of the government. The DPRK censors computer games for any
subliminal anticommunist messages. Because the North Korean general
public has virtually no Internet access, the government has not concerned
itself with regulating Internet content.
Page 72
Speech Restrictions Embolden

Terrorist Actions
Restrictions on speech could make terrorist discourse worse,
giving credence to the movement; discourse should be heard,
even if it is not desirable.
Laura K. Donohue, Cardozo Law, 2005, Terrorist Speech and the Future of Free
Expression, p. 328
An immediate example presents itself: Al Qaeda offers an interpretation of the
Quran that contradicts a number of religious leaders views. By
instituting provisions that end up restricting political speechsuch as
widespread detentionthe United States impacts the ability of the Islamic
community to explore the allegation made by the fringe organization.
Indeed, by excluding liberal Islamic leaders from entering the U.S. on the basis of
their religion, the Bush Administration limited the communitys opportunity to
challenge those viewsand to develop an alternative concept of ihtjihad. The risk
that open discourse runs, of course, is that by allowing discussion, more support will
be generated for those pursuing al Qaedas aims. It may not be just liberal clerics
who enter the nation, but illiberal advocates of political violence. However, by
forcing these ideas underground, the state increases their importance
when reasoned debate in the open light of day may demonstrate faults in
al Qaedas interpretations and give more progressive elements an
opportunity to counter the Islamist dialogue. And here, I believe, there is an
important distinction to be drawn between actors like Adolph Hitler and Osama bin
Laden. Where Hitler had a state apparatus behind him that could augment
underlying prejudice with coercive power, bin Ladenindeed, any substate terrorist leaderlacks a similar tool for dominating the domestic
population. Although entirely obvious, it is necessary to add that al Qaeda
is not the only organization willing to use violence against American and
British interests. The U.S., for instance, is riddled with fiercely libertarian
militia organizations. The U.K. continues to grapple with Republican and Loyalist
violence. The day may yet come when Middle East organizations move their
operations to draw attention to their cause. Each successive world trade summit
sees growing dissatisfaction with multi-national corporations and international
agreements that sacrifice the rights of the individual for the sake of larger goals.
And environmentalists, disillusioned at the lack of concern exhibited by political
leaders at the destruction of the earths natural resources, are angry. The
language of these and other organizations may be extremely vitriolic; but
this is no reason to prevent it from being aired.
Page 73
Speech Restrictions Encourage

Government Violence
Restrictions on speech lead to harassment and the chance of
being detained by authorities; freedom of speech should be a
basic human right, not a fear of reprisal.
2011, p. 19-20
Certainly, there are governments in the region that seek to control and
monitor what their citizens do online, to stifle the potential of these
technologies and unfairly target their users. Around the world, our Foreign
Service officers follow the cases of these individuals and report on them in our
annual Human Rights Reports. In the 2009 reports alone, we cited over 20
cases of bloggers and other Internet activists being harassed or unfairly
detained by governments across the Middle East and North Africa. The
Department also speaks out on behalf of these individuals in official diplomatic
dialogues and in the media. Our officials condemned the imprisonment of Egyptian
blogger Kareem Amer and called for his release on multiple occasions. Secretary
Clinton has made Internet freedom a global policy priority for the United States. We
view this issue as one of how to apply existing rights to new technologies. We are
working hard to ensure that citizens longstanding rights to freedom of
expression and the free flow of information are protected regardless of
mediumthat the same rights that those citizens and journalists are
accorded in the offline world are respected in the online world as well.
Having said that, we understand that Internet activists are not analogous to
traditional journalists. The Internet is a new medium for expression,
reporting, and journalism, but also for citizen activism and civil society. All
of these activities involve the exercise of basic rights (i.e. free expression
and free association), online and offline, and we support both types. As the
Internet and other technologies evolve, we are committed to ensuring that
people everywhere can communicate with each other, express opinions
and ideas, and access information, free from fear that their governments
or other malicious actors will harass, arrest, or perpetrate violence
against them
Page 74
Security Should Not Outweigh

Personal Freedoms (1/2)
Freedom of speech and rights need to be protected, especially
with heightened security concerns.
G. Robert Blakey, William J. and Dorothy ONeill Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law
School, and, Brian J. Murray, Law Clerk to the Honorable Diarmuid F. OScannlain of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 1, 2002, Threats,
Free Speech, and the Jurisprudence of the Federal Criminal Law, p. 1086-1089
Here, too, Justice Holmess point needs to be recalled: Great cases like hard
cases make bad law. It will happen again if we are not vigilant in our
efforts to protect freedom as we make efforts to protect security. This
country, too, does not have an attractive track record on civil liberties in
war time. Reference need only be made to the infamous Sedition Laws following
the Revolutionary War or to the Palmer raids during the Red Scare of the First World
War period. Wisely, George Santayana observed, Those who cannot remember
the past are condemned to repeat it." We are masters of our fate, if only
we will learn from our experience. As Justice Brandeis so eloquently
observed: [The] freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are
means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; . . .
without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; . . . with
them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the
dissemination of noxious doctrine; . . . the greatest menace to freedom is
an inert people; . . . public discussion is a political duty; and . . . this
should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
The internet is crucial for society, which means the

government must not intrude and regulate the internet's
usage and content.
Timothy B. Lee, Adjunct Scholar at the CATO Institute, and Jim Harper, Senior Fellow
at the CATO Institute, 2008, CATO Handbook for Policy Makers: 30. Regulation of
Electronic Speech and Commerce, p. 315-316
The burst of creativity, communication, and commerce brought forth by
the Internet in recent decades is only the beginning of a wave of
innovation and progress that the Internet medium will foster. It should be
kept an unfettered, entrepreneurial realm so that we can get the
maximum benefits from creative, industrious Internet communicators and
business- people the world over. But the Internet regularly comes under
assault, as poorly informed lawmakers blame it for the social ills it
sometimes reveals. They promise their constituents protection from
Page 75
practices that are better cured by new technology, education, choice, and
responsible Internet use. Policymakers must resist intervention in the
Internet and the Internet economy. Whether governments act as
regulators or promoters of high tech, they will impose needless costs and
create unintended consequences. Solutions to problems with the Internet can
be found on the Internet itself. The collective intelligence, creativity, and problemsolving ability of technologists and Internet users vastly outstrip those of any
government regulator.
Page 76
Security Should Not Outweigh

Personal Freedoms (2/2)
Restrictions on the internet control political usage, which is
too much government control on content.
Asian States, p. 47
Other one-party regimes have reacted to the Internet not by banning it,
but by placing significant restrictions on Internet access and on online
political content and usage, or both. In East Asia, China is the main
proponent of this strategy, though Vietnam is following a similar path.
China is attempting the most challenging balance of any East Asian
country: its leadership both encourages growth of the Internet (to gain the
material benefits) and actively regulates its political content (to stem the
erosion of propaganda control). Internet access. At all levels, the Chinese
government actively promotes the Internet. State-owned companies are building
the telecom infrastructure at a blistering rate, with plans to invest $120 billion
during the next five years. China Telecom, the major telecom provider, has added
new fixed lines at the rate of two million per month and announced in March 2001
that it will bring broadband to 20 million customers in the next five years.
Page 77
Free Speech Zones are Bad

The government is even restricting speech on college
campuses, despite the regulations not being effective.
Spatial tactics have also become a means of controlling and disciplining
expression on university campuses. In the 1980s and 1990s, several
universities adopted "speech codes" to combat sexual and racial
harassment. For a number of reasons, not least of which were the
vagueness and overbreadth of the codes, as well as their sometimes
evident purpose to suppress certain viewpoints, the codes were
invalidated by courts. This, of course, did not eradicate the problem of
harassing, disturbing, and racist expression on college campuses.
University administrators, unwilling or unable to suppress these ideas
outright, sought other means to limit and control such expression. Many
universities, among them Texas Tech University, New Mexico State University, West
Virginia University, the University of Mississippi, and Florida State University, turned
to spatial tactics. These institutions replaced their free speech codes with free
speech zones.
University free speech zones are ineffective in allowing

students the appropriate space necessary to exercise their
right to free speech.
Speech and Spatial Tactics, p. 601-602
Here, in yet another charged context, the government sought to quell
social and political unrest by turning to place. Naturally, university
officials, like other government officials, insist that free speech zones
serve interests unrelated to the content of the expression interests like
safety and pedagogical mission. In many cases, however, the dimensions
of the campus zones leave substantial room for doubt. At West Virginia
University, for example, the original speech zone policy limited expressive
activity to only two small zones on a very large campus. Faculty members
described these zones as being "roughly the size of a classroom."' ' Under pressure
from students and faculty, the university expanded the number of zones from two to
seven. Still, the space encompassed within the expanded area of seven free
speech zones amounted to no more than 5% of the total campus.
Page 78
Regulations Ineffective
Regulations are ineffective, if even possible, because
jurisdiction varies and the notion of what is or isn't offensive is
too subjective.
Laura Leets, Assistant Professor of Communication and an affiliate faculty member
in Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity Program at Stanford University,

2001, Responses to Internet Sites: Is Speech too Free in Cyberspace?, p. 296
Issues of Internet regulation naturally lead to the question of whether it is
even possible. Cyberspace does not have geographical boundaries so it is
difficult to determine where violations of the law should be prosecuted.
There are enforcement conflicts not only between different countries
legal jurisdictions but also among federal, state and local governments in
the United States. Although Americans place a high premium on free expression,
Andrew Brown argues that without much effort most people can find Internet
material that they would want to censor. Because people vary regarding the objects
of their disapproval, Brown concludes that either ideas offend almost all
community standards or none, leaving policy choices that range between
freedom and conformity. The job of reconciling free expression and
conflicting interests belongs to the courts. Throughout the 20th century,
United States jurisprudence has supported free speech over its restriction.
Society's ever-changing nature makes it difficult to effectively

enact restrictions
Children from Controversial Speech, p. 7
The pace of social change and the emergence of new modes and styles of
communication have long inspired calls for censorship designed to shield
children from contamination, and they continue to prompt parental
concern. But whether or not such adult concerns are justified, or look
reasonable in hindsight, the Speech Clause restricts the ability of the body
politic to regulate speech that is protected for adults. Government efforts
to make protected speech unavailable to children must overcome a
number of constitutional barriers, beginning with the problem of
definition, as explored in the following Part.
Page 79
Despite desires for parents to censor all potentially harmful

information from their children, it is inevitable that they could
see the unwanted information.
Children from Controversial Speech, p. 4-5
Many parents and grandparents, including legislators and judges in their
individual capacities, would like to see the efforts of Congress to protect
children from harmful materials . . . ultimately succeed and the will of the
majority of citizens in this country to be realized. But they will never
succeed in completely shielding the young from exposure to controversial
topics because there is virtually no information that an enterprising
youngster could not pick up from news coverage. The highest elected official
admits marital infidelity involving fellatio; high school students use guns to murder
their teachers and/or classmates; a prominent musician, accused of child
molestation, reportedly pays millions of dollars to avoid legal penalties;
international news includes coverage of so-called ethnic cleansing in the Balkans
and ethnic slaughter in Africa. None of these news stories could be barred
consistent with the First Amendment. The prevalence of such speech in news
coverage underscores the flaws in the dominant mode of analyzing speech
rights in light of the medium in which the speech occurs.
Page 80
CON
Privacy is of foundational importance to our society
Julie E. Cohen, Professor at Georgetown Law Center, 2013, What Privacy is For,
accessed July 21, 2014, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=2175406
So described, privacy is anything but old-fashioned, and trading it away creates two
kinds of large systemic risk, which Parts III and IV discuss. Privacy incursions can be episodic or
systematic, but systematic deprivations of privacy also facilitate episodic
privacy incursions. In this Essay,
freedom
from surveillance, whether public or private, is foundational to the practice of
informed and reflective citizenship. Privacy therefore is an indispensable structural
feature of liberal democratic political systems. Freedom from surveillance also is
foundational to the capacity for innovation , and so the perception of privacy as anti-innovation is a
therefore, I will focus on the interplay between privacy
and systems of surveillance. I will argue that
non sequitur. Innovation occurs in commercial and social contexts and is infused with particular commercial and
social values; in particular, a commercial culture that sees privacy as threatening particular practices of knowledge
production will register privacy regulation as a threat. But a society that values innovation ignores privacy at its
peril, for privacy also shelters the processes of play and experimentation from which innovation emerges. In short,
privacy incursions harm individuals, but not only individuals. Privacy incursions in
the name of progress, innovation, and ordered liberty jeopardize the continuing
vitality of the political and intellectual culture that we say we value.
Minimizing surveillance is key to protecting privacy, and

preserving basic needs of human flourishing
Julie E. Cohen, Professor at Georgetown Law Center, 2013, What Privacy is For,
accessed July 21, 2014, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=2175406
If, as I have argued, the capacity for critical subjectivity shrinks in conditions of
diminished privacy, what happens
Conditions of diminished privacy shrink the latter

capacity as well, because they impair both the capacity and the scope for the practice of
citizenship. But a liberal democratic society cannot sustain itself without citizens
who possess the capacity for democratic self-government. A society that permits
the unchecked ascendancy of surveillance infrastructures cannot hope to remain a
liberal democracy. Under such conditions, liberal democracy as a form of
government is replaced, gradually but surely, by a different form of government
that I will call modulated democracy because it relies on a form of surveillance that operates by
to the capacity for democratic self-government?
modulation. Modulation and modulated democracy emerge as networked surveillance technologies take root within
characterized by advanced systems of informational capitalism. Citizens within
modulated democraciescitizens who are subject to pervasively distributed
surveillance and modulation by powerful commercial and political interests
increasingly will lack the capacity to form and pursue meaningful agendas for
human flourishing.
democratic societies
Page 81
Information technology is moving us toward a panoptic society,

hurting democracy
Jean-Franois Blanchette, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, AND Deborah G. Johnson, Georgia
Institute of Technology, 2002, Data retention and the panoptic society: The social benefits of forgetfulness,
accessed July 16, 2014, http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/blanchette/papers/is.pdf
We agree with others who have suggested that the apparatus of a panoptic society is slowly,
but surely, being put into place in the U.S. (Gandy 1993) Democracies are generally thought of as
societies in which individuals have a high degree of individual liberty and government power is limited and
information and communication technologies are moving us

rapidly toward a panoptic society. The panopticon is Benthams prison environment,
as described by Foucault (1975), in which prison cells are arranged in a large circle
with the side facing the inside of the circle open to view . The guard tower is placed
in the middle of the circle so that the inside of each cell is in plain view of the
guards. The amount of data currently collected as we go about our everyday lives
intelligent highway systems, consumer transactions , traffic patterns on the Internet,
medical, educational, financial, and insurance records , and so on, strongly suggests we
are moving into a panoptic society. Even if the data is not collected by a single, Orwellian-like entity,
checked. Yet, it appears that
but rather by a mixture of public and private institutions, and even if what is observed is not necessarily
the possibility of synthesis remains. Clearly, such a

panoptic society presents fundamental challenges to the exercise of
amalgamated into a single dossier,
democratic freedoms and responsibilities.
Right to be forgotten works Google responds to requests and

is taking down links
Sam Schechner, staff writer for the Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2014, Google Starts Removing Search
Results Under Europe's 'Right to be Forgotten', accessed July 21, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/google-startsremoving-search-results-under-europes-right-to-be-forgotten-1403774023
The Internet is starting to forget. Google Inc. on Thursday started removing results from
its search engine under Europe's new "right to be forgotten ," implementing a landmark May
ruling by the European Union's top court that gives individuals the right to request removal of results that turn up in
Google engineers overnight updated the company's

technical infrastructure to begin implementing the removals , and Thursday began
sending the first emails to individuals informing them that links they had requested
were being taken down. The company has hired a dedicated "removals team" to
evaluate each request, though only a small number of the initial wave of takedown
requests has so far been processed. "This week, we're starting to take action on the
removals requests that we've received," a Google spokesman said . "This is a new process
Internet searches for their own names.
for us. Each request has to be assessed individually, and we're working as quickly as possible to get through the
Google's fast move to accommodate a wave of takedown requests represents

the first concrete application of Europe's nascent "right to be forgotten."
queue."
Page 82
Timelessness of online data prevents people from successfully

reforming or rehabilitating
Jean-Franois Blanchette, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, AND Deborah G.
Johnson, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2002, Data retention and the
panoptic society: The social benefits of forgetfulness, accessed July 16, 2014,
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/blanchette/papers/is.pdf
The idea that Americans value the opportunity for a fresh start was recognized in
the early literature on privacy, and periodically recurs in current literature. Westin and
Baker (1972), in their seminal work, Databanks in a Free Society, understood that this value was
perceived to be under siege because of computers: Many citizens assume, out of a variety
of religious, humanistic, and psychiatric orientations, that it is socially beneficial to encourage
individuals to reform their lives, a process that is impeded when individuals know (or
feel) that they will automatically be barred by their past mistakes at each of the
later gate-keeping points of social and economic life. Because the computer is assumed not
to lose records, to forward them efficiently to new places and organizations, and to create an appetite in
the computer is seen as threatening this

forgiveness principle. (Westin and Baker 1972, p. 267) Interestingly enough, Westin and Baker went on to
organizations for historically complete records,
point out that the key question about erasure or non-circulation of derogatory information was not a technical
matter in the organizations they visited. It was an issue of social policy, on which society has to choose between
the forgive-and-forget and preserve but evaluate theories of record-keeping in each substantive area (p. 268).
In his study of police surveillance practices, Gary Marx has underlined how surveillance
information transcends time, that is, it is available for analysis many years after the
fact, and in totally different interpretive contexts. (Marx 1986, p. 150) He remarks how this
threatens to undermine some basic American values.
Page 83
Right to be forgotten can help victims of domestic violence

escape their ex-partners
BBC News, May 14, 2014, Google: Who would want the right to be forgotten?
accessed July 21, 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27396981
There's a more serious side even than dented unemployment prospects. Victims of domestic abuse
often face a situation where a violent ex-partner is trying to track them down. The
victims are often named in media reports about their partners' crimes. Details about
unhappy relationships and harrowing tales of violence can be permanently
associated with their names, even as they want to move on to a new life of
independence and freedom. Because of that, the EU's recent decision is a good thing ,
believes Polly Neate, the chief executive of Women's Aid, an anti-domestic violence
charity. "We welcome changes which would give survivors of domestic violence
more control over their personal details online ," she says. But what would be better is ensuring
victims aren't named in the first place. "Too many news outlets perpetuate misleading stereotypes of domestic
violence. Perpetrators, and victims report stories in a sensationalist way, and can put women and children at risk of
The media has a responsibility to ensure that stories about domestic

violence don't do further damage to the survivor or impact on her recovery ."
retaliation.
Page 84
RTBF Solves Search engines respond

Right to be forgotten gives individuals recourse to protect
their privacy working in Europe
Danny Hakim, staff writer for the New York Times, May 29, 2014, Right to Be Forgotten? Not That Easy,
accessed July 17, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/business/international/on-the-internet-the-right-toforget-vs-the-right-to-know.html?_r=1
LONDON Eoin McKeogh knows how hard it can be to make the Internet forget. He
started waging a court battle against the likes of Google, Facebook and Yahoo after
a Dublin cabdriver posted a video in 2011 that showed someone who looked like
him but wasnt bailing on his cab fare. Mr. McKeogh, a university student who
was in Japan at the time, was pilloried on the Internet after an anonymous user
falsely named him as the fare dodger. While the original video was taken down long
ago, Mr. McKeogh continues to fight in court to expunge the digital trail. He is
among the thousands of Europeans trying to erase their online histories. In France,
a mother recently sought to remove photos of her scantily clad teenage daughter
from a website. In Romania, a woman tried to curtail online access to records of her
divorce. In Britain, a former politician wanted to delete Google links to a book he
viewed as defamatory toward him. Such efforts have accelerated after a landmark
decision by the European high court this month that will require Google and other
search providers to consider individuals requests to remove links that they say
infringe on their privacy.
World support for right to be forgotten Europe and Asia

Cannix Yau, writer for the South China Morning Post, June 16, 2014, Hong Kong
to lobby Google over the 'right to be forgotten', accessed July 21, 2014,
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1533618/privacy-chief-allan-chiangwants-right-be-forgotten-extended-asia?page=all
With Google bowing to a "right to be forgotten" ruling in Europe, Hong Kong's
privacy chief will ask his regional counterparts to join him in pressing the internet
search giant to extend the same safeguards to the region. Privacy Commissioner
Allan Chiang Yam-wang revealed his plan ahead of the 41st Asia Pacific Privacy
Authorities forum, which opens in Seoul tomorrow. Privacy authorities from 15
jurisdictions including the US, Canada, Macau, Australia, and New Zealand will
discuss privacy issues, including last month's European Court of Justice decision.
The court determined that people have the right to ask search companies to remove
links to information about them that is "inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant or
excessive".
Page 85
RTBF Needed Surveillance Society Coming Now

The power of internet search engines presents a threat to
every individual
The power of Internet search engines to access all data concerning a targeted
individual at any time, from anywhere, without any administrative procedure,
without revealing the identity of the person who requested the search, and for free,
raises an even greater danger. We must carefully reconsider the balance needed.
On the precise point of data about judicial past, a first answer is the anonymisation
of case law databases available on the Net, which is now the rule in the majority of
European countries. But another important source of concern, which will be dealt
with next, is the question of newspaper archives.
Society is misdirected codified law does not reflect ideal

moral rights and values, most of society has fallen for the false
promises of information society
Ivan Szekely, Associate Professor at the Eotvos Karoly Policy Institute, 2012,
European Data Protection: In Good Health? p. 347,
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-2903-2_17
As I am writing this essay, which is concerned not so much with codified law as with
moral rights and values in a changing world, I am conscious of the fact that I am
up against a stiff headwind, in a social climate where the prevalent trend in public
discourse on recent history favors the public exposure of crimes and criminals, real
and imaginary; where the political dialogue confuses the increasingly outworn
problem of informers under a totalitarian regime with the issue of identifying with,
or showing loyalty to, the previous governments ideology; where scheming
historians mistake the unveiling of the previous regimes transgressions for probing
into and disclosing peoples private lives; where the millions of nave Internet users
take the claims made by the big IT corporations about the eternal life of information
technology at face value; where the code is the law; and where not only the
cohort of the technical intelligentsia (an interested and willing party), but also the
social science elite of postmodern society (people dazzled by the chimera of a
relentlessly changing market for attention on the one hand, and unable to
comprehend the real forces of social interaction on the other) all seem to fall for the
promise that everlasting storage of, and ready access to, all the information, at all
times and in all places, actually paves the way to the redemption of mankind, and in
any case new technology will solve social problems and make people happier
Page 86
RTBF Good Privacy/Rehabilitation

Many countries already recognize a right to oblivion of your
judicial past we should offer everyone the option to
rehabilitate, restart, and be free of past mistakes
The first facet of the right to oblivion, the most classical, is linked to an individuals judicial or criminal past. It was
the right to oblivion of the judicial

past has gone widely beyond criminal records. It has been recognized by case law in
several countries, based on the right to privacy or as part of personality rights . It is
justified by faith in a human beings capacity to change and improve as well as on
the conviction that a person should not be reduced to their past. Once you have paid
what is due, society must offer you the possibility to rehabilitate and restart without
bearing the weight of your past errors for the rest of your life.
at first mostly related to the creation of criminal records. Today,
Right to be forgotten can help domestic violence victims and

is popular 80% of Spain supports
Meg Leta Ambrose, Assistant Professor of Communication, Culture, and Technology (CCT) at Georgetown
University, 2013, It's About Time: Privacy, Information Life Cycles, and the Right to be Forgotten, accessed
July 21, 2014, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
params=/context/meg_ambrose/article/1001/type/native/&path_info=
Spain
has now taken up shaping the Right to be Forgotten, backed by over 80%
of its population . More than 90 citizens filed formal complaints with the Spanish
Data Protection Agency, among them a domestic violence victims address and an
old college arrest. After assessing the privacy concerns of each complaint and
failing to persuade the source of the content to take action, the Agency ordered
Google to stop indexing the information. Google challenged the order saying that editing the index
would have a profound chilling effect on free expression without protecting peoples privacy and violate the
objectivity of the Internet.
Page 87
RTBF Good Privacy outweighs freedom of speech

Right to be forgotten protects individuals right to identity
outweighs freedom of expression and speech
Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade, UC Berkeley Law School, Berkeley Center for
Law & Technology, February 2012, Oblivion: The Right to Be Different from
Oneself - Reproposing the Right to Be Forgotten, accessed July 21, 2014,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2033155
The right to be forgotten should be associated to the right to identity to avoid the
application of the household exemption or the freedom of expression safeguard. This
would enable the possibility to request deletion of personal information posted on
the Internet, either processed for purely personal purposes (not going beyond the number of
self-selected contacts), or information posted to the public and accessible to an indefinite
number of people. Regarding information disclosed to the public, the right to
oblivion framed along the lines of the right to identity would be a stronger
justification for balancing it with the right to freedom of expression , so avoiding the
infallible prevalence of the latter. The criteria for applying the right to be forgotten
would concern the occurrence of an incorrect representation of ones identity, that
is, the verification of a mismatch between the identity conveyed by outdated
information and the one the individual now wishes to convey. To sum up, the right to oblivion
could then be applied regardless if the information in question had been uploaded for domestic purposes or not, or
if the information was accessible to an indefinite number of people or not. This paradigmatic shift from a
privacy to an identity rationale would render the household exemption (and all the current complexities surrounding
would also endow the right to oblivion with a

stronger justification for balancing and articulation with the right to freedom of
expression, questioning its infallible prevalence.
it) inapplicable to the right to be forgotten. It
Right to be forgotten protects identity formation, outweighs

freedom of speech
Those that sustain the right to information and free speech to the detriment of the
right to oblivion argue that the right to delete information about an individual
amounts to a right to prevent people from speaking about that individual. Mayes,
arguing against the right to be forgotten, commente: Being forgotten might sound appealing for some, but making
a right out of it degrades the concept of rights. Instead of being something that embodies the relationship between
the individual and society, it pretends that relationship doesnt exist. The right to be forgotten is a figment of our
Contrary to this opinion, I believe it is important to acknowledge that the

right to oblivion encompasses much more than the mere intent to hide the
individual from society (privacy perspective). The right to be forgotten is an instrument
through which individuals correct and re-project their images to society (identity
perspective). It is in these terms, as the right to convey the public image and identity
that one wishes, that the right to oblivion should be balanced and articulated with
the right to freedom of information and free speech. The right to be forgotten does
not ignore the relationship between the individual and society. On the contrary, the
right to be forgotten assumes and departs from its existence, rebalancing the way
in which the individual (and his ipse identity) is represented in society (idem identity).
imaginations.
Page 88
Page 89
RTBF Good Solves outsourcing of memory

Communication technology has caused an externalization of
the human memory
Kiyoshi Murata, Meiji University School of Commerce, AND, Yohko Orito, Faculty of Law and Letters,
Ehime University, 2011, The right to forget/be forgotten, accessed July 17, 2014,
http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/The%20right%20to%20forget%20(extended%20abstract).pdf
Behind the study objectives is the authors concern about negative impacts of the
externalisation of human memory on intellectual activities and growth, happiness and
dignity of each and every human being. In the business administrative context, Simon (1976)
pointed out that human memory may be
either natural or artificial, and for any kind of memory to be useful there
the permeation of
information and communication technology (ICT) centred on database and network technology
throughout society brought about the progress of artificialisation or externalisation of
human memory; organisational databases and the Web are now considered to
substitute a large part of human memory. This, with the global spread of market-economy
must be mechanisms that
permit the memory to be drawn upon when needed. Actually,
principles, caused a technology-driven social change from
Foucauldian disciplinary society to Deleuzian
which has
resulted in the socio-economic environment where eternal, unambiguous human
memory outside human brains, which is continually updated by 24/7 electronic
surveillance systems, is relentlessly used for providing personalised services by
business organisations and for public security and safety and peoples reliable
livelihoods by public organisations. In this environment, however, people are forced to
refresh their memory or prohibited to forget the past of them through being
provided the personalised, paternalistic services based on digital records stored in the external
human memory. Such services seem to presuppose that the future of people is an
extension of the past of them. Of course, this is not necessarily true ; people can get over
environmental control society (Azuma and Ohsawa,
2003; Foucault, 1975; Deleuze, 1990)
the past and may desire to settle and forget the unfortunate past.
Right to be forgotten is key to the individuals ability to

construct identity
Kiyoshi Murata, Meiji University School of Commerce, AND, Yohko Orito, Faculty of Law and Letters,
Ehime University, 2011, The right to forget/be forgotten, accessed July 17, 2014,
http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/The%20right%20to%20forget%20(extended%20abstract).pdf
Actually, human beings have an ability to forget selectively. We have to look at the bright side of forgetting. In the
technological circumstance where the dream of the total recall will likely come true, if we fail to
establish the right to appropriate forgetting/being forgotten, it would become
difficult for us to construct our own identity and narrative at our discretion . Ricoeur
(2000) provides rich suggestions on this point. Moreover, Carr (2010) points out that our most
creative and conceptual thinking often emerged from the complexity of the
connections among the memories stored in our mind. Biological memory is the seat
of the unique self as well as the foundation of a rich culture. If we outsource our
memory to external databases, we begin to destroy that foundation. His comment
current
suggests the
social significance of the right to forget/be forgotten.
Outsourcing memory too much destroys the foundations for

the self and culture
Nicholas Carr, former Executive Director of the Harvard Business Review, February 11, 2010, We Are
Industrializing Our Minds, accessed July 17, 2014, http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/67-carr-nicholas/68internet-and-intelligence
Page 90
as we come to automate intimate thought processes and

social processes with software, we lose some of the personal depth and
distinctiveness that has long characterized a vibrant intellectual life. Following
algorithms tends to flatten our thoughts and emotions, making us, in a way, more
machine-like. As to memory, there seems to be a growing belief that, thanks to the web,
we no longer have to memorize much information . We just need to Google it. The problem there
is that our most creative and conceptual thinking often emerges from the complexity
of the connections among the memories stored in our minds . Biological memory is
the seat of the unique self as well as the foundation of a rich culture. If we
outsource our memory to external databases, we begin to destroy that foundation .
I think theres evidence that,
Page 91
RTBF Good Improves identity/culture formation

The ability to forget is key to positive human lives right to be
forgotten would help solve
Kiyoshi Murata, Meiji University School of Commerce, AND, Yohko Orito, Faculty
of Law and Letters, Ehime University, 2011, The right to forget/be forgotten,
accessed July 17, 2014, http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/The%20right%20to
%20forget%20(extended%20abstract).pdf
Forgetting is quite natural mentation for human beings . Whereas many people suffer morbid
forgetting due to aging or disease, anyone experiences wholesome forgetting more or less.
This relates to maintenance of peace of mind and creation of spiritually affluent
lives through surmounting fault, shame and PTSD, for example; sound mental
growth including self-transcendence; positive human relationship-building based
on, for example, forgiveness (although it can be a far deeper and richer phenomenon than forgetting as
Enright (2001) and Konstan (2010) suggest); and establishment of personal identity. However, as a result of
the development of an advanced information and telecommunication society , the
wholesome functioning of forgetting has substantially become underestimated. We
dont need to have an
obsession with photographic memory, although many people seem to believe that human
The vagueness of biological

memory based on forgetting characterises humanity and the total recall based on ememory would make people less human . Hence, if people are in the
technological environment in which forgetting is harmfully restricted regardless of
whether they like it or not, an attempt to protect this natural human mentation
through conceptualising the right to forget/be forgotten would be socially
memory
should be precise and the total recall is undoubtedly good.
justifiable as well as significant .
RTBF Key to identity

The right to be forgotten, as the right for individuals to have information about them
deleted after a certain period of time, not only concerns a fundamental identity
interest, it also develops and enriches the conceptualization of the right to personal
identity. The right to oblivion underlines not only the right to be different from
others, but also the right to be different from oneself, namely from ones past self.
This is an extremely important nuance as it draws attention to the essential role
played by the right to be forgotten in enabling the de-construction of ones identity
before a new, different one can be constructed.
Right to be forgotten key to avoiding an everlasting present,

and building new identity
Page 92
Today, what we post on the Internet becomes a kind of tattoo attached to ourselves,
hard and cumbersome to remove. The past is no longer the past, but an everlasting
present. Mayer-Schonberger argues that as more and more information is added to
digital memory, digital remembering confuses human decision-making by
overloading us with information that we are better off to have forgotten. I would
add that constant digital remembering also confuses identities, overlapping traces
and actions that belong to an identity that we no longer want to see represented
and remembered.
Page 93
RTBF Good Improves economy

Helps young job candidates who are googled by prospective
employers
BBC News, May 14, 2014, Google: Who would want the right to be forgotten? accessed July 21, 2014,
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27396981
Employers regularly Google prospective candidates to learn about their history negative images and posts are then viewed very briefly, out of context, in a way
that can transform something slightly inadvisable into a real obstacle to getting an
interview. The head of public policy at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development (CIPD), Ben Wilmott, says that though employers should only be
evaluating candidates based on their competency for the job and any profiles on
professional social networking websites such as LinkedIn, many do more general
Google searches that can look at private lives. A recent survey by the CIPD found that 40%
of employers look at social media profiles to inform their recruitment decisions .
"There's a question mark over how and when employers should use the information
they find on Google 'fishing expeditions' ," he says. "What this law could do is refocus
employers - they'll have to go back to asking if this person is the right person for
the job strictly on the basis of their qualifications ." One university student, who did not wish to
be named, says she could imagine potentially using the right to be forgotten in the future. "People often say that
potential employers Google or Facebook your name. There are pictures of me next to toilets full of vomit, and
drunken pictures in nightclubs. Things make their way online that I would rather potential employers or future
partners didn't see."
Right to be forgotten helps individuals people get jobs and

those seeking asylum
BBC News, May 14, 2014, Google: Who would want the right to be forgotten? accessed July 21, 2014,
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27396981
In the UK, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows convictions to be "spent" after a certain period of time. For
instance, for anyone sentenced to less than six months in prison, their conviction has become spent after two
Spent convictions typically do not need to be disclosed to employers, but it's

easy to see how a Google search result could void any possible benefit from the act.
Asylum seekers Many asylum seekers have concerns about their whereabouts being
known, says Andy Warmington, who helps run Crossings , an arts charity that works
with immigrants, based in the north east of England. Members are fleeing from
complicated situations in their home countries, and Warmington can see the
positive points for those he works with of being able to wipe clean one's online
record. "Being able to contact Google or Facebook and have their data removed
entirely gives them control over their fear, and the risks they perceive they're
facing," he says.
years.
Right to be forgotten helping European economy creates

opportunity for new business
Sam Frizell, writer for Time Magazine, July 18, 2014, Theres a Right To Be Forgotten Industryand Its
Booming, accessed July 21, 2014, http://time.com/3002240/right-to-be-forgotten-2/
Online reputation management is a growing business that is now being boosted by

the E.U. ruling. For a fee that can amount to thousands of dollars a month, companies take on clients and scrub
clean their search results by creating search engine-optimized content that hog up the first few pages of search
Clients ranging from CEOs, major corporations, celebrities down to

doctors and restaurateurs who use the services to whitewash their online presence .
Media consultant BIA/Kelsey forecasts that small and medium-size businesses will
results on Google.
Page 94
spend $3.5 billion managing their online reputations in 2014. Now, the E.U.s court
ruling has changed the dynamics of the industry, expanding these businesses client base and
making it easier for them to delete content rather than just create it. The number of our
inbound leadsnew referralshas gone up about 50 percent since the beginning of
May, says Simon Wadsworth, managing director of the U.K.-based online reputation
management firm Igniyte. The E.U. ruling has raised awareness of the industry. You can change how you
do things online.
Page 95
Free Expression Is Not Absolute

This assertion of internet privacy only really harms companies
who profit from mined datatheir freedom of expression must
be balanced with the right of content creators to control their
identities
John Hendel, Telecom & mass media Capitol Hill reporter for Communications
Daily, January 25, 2012
"Why Journalists Shouldn't Fear Europe's 'Right to be Forgotten'," The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/why-journalists-shouldntfear-europes-right-to-be-forgotten/251955/2/ (accessed 10/4/2014)
The people who should worry are companies whose profits rely on mined, invasive
data abuses. American companies, from Google to Facebook to Amazon, will have to
adjust to a user-friendlier European Internet, which at least now will offer one set of
rules rather than 27. This overhaul, the first in 17 years, will hopefully reduce the
number of conflicted transatlantic court cases we saw in the last half decade. What
matters now, more than ever, is the consent of the individual. Google has already
made real gestures this year to spread the idea that the company values privacy.
The search engine alerts people of a policy change coming March 12 -- "not the
usual yada yada," Google assures -- and celebrates the "five guiding principles" of
privacy in a video (these principles explain how Google uses our information to
"make our products even more useful"). Google features a British narrator in this
new video who assures us: "We don't sell user information to other companies."
Reding's closing note at the end of her recent Munich speech recognized the
delicate ideological balancing act the European Union now embarks on. For now, at
least, the right to be forgotten demands corporate transparency with data rather
than empowers the individual to censor. Europe will benefit from a unified set of
regulations staked against business interests located in America and operating on
U.S. ideological principles. "According to the Fundamental Rights Charter, the
freedom of expression and the freedom of information are basic rights for the
European citizens. They are directly linked to a free Internet which has thus to be
preserved," Reding said. "But those are not the only freedoms. The right of the
creator to the content and fruits of his creation are equally important. This right also
has to be preserved."
Page 96
Ordinary People Need The Right To Be Forgotten

The right to be forgotten chiefly benefits those without the
resources to challenge corporations on control of information
Jo Best, Information Technology Reporter in London and Sydney, June 5, 2014
"The right to be forgotten: Can we really trust Google to decide when our data
should die?" ZDNet, http://www.zdnet.com/the-right-to-be-forgotten-can-we-reallytrust-google-to-decide-when-our-data-should-die-7000030218/ (accessed
10/5/2014)
Most of those requests will come from those who lack the monetary might and legal
representation to present a challenge to Google, or from those with both seeking to
hide information that should remain in the public domain. For the sake of those who
want to be forgotten and those who believe certain information shouldn't be hidden,
these requests should be taken seriously, considered properly, and granted
sparingly. The only way to do that is to take the decisions out of Google's hands.
Non-public figures and non-famous people are the most

affected and the most vulnerable
Eric Posner, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School and a Fellow
of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, May 14, 2014
"We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten," Slate,

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/the_eur
opean_right_to_be_forgotten_is_just_what_the_internet_needs.html (accessed
10/3/2014)
The problem of old embarrassments or troubles living forever online is one that
American law does not yet address. And its a problem that is actually worse for
people who are not public figuresthe people who are supposed to receive greater
privacy protections from the law. If youre a movie star, or even a blogger, Google
will turn up dozens of new links when someone searches your name, and the old,
embarrassing ones will quickly be buried. But if youre just a regular person, a news
story is likely to continue to surface at the top of your Google results. Searchers
may find additional information about you on Facebook and other social media,
some of which may end up on the open Web.
RTBF benefits those who have served criminal sentences and

helps them reintegrate into society
Renato Opice Blum, attorney, economist and president of the IT Advisory Board of
Fecomercio, September 1, 2013
"The Right to Be Forgotten in Brazil," The Privacy Advisor,
https://privacyassociation.org/news/a/the-right-to-be-forgotten-in-brazil/ (accessed
10/4/2014)
Given that a fundamental principle of sentencing is ultimately to return those
convicted to more productive lives in society, then in order to facilitate this, the
right to forget previous wrongdoings should at least be understood.
Page 97
Ordinary People Need The Right To Be Forgotten

No RTBF means Google will publish peoples criminal records,
threatening the interests of those who have served their time
for crimes
Convicted criminals who want to escape the taint of their records are also out of
luck when it comes to petitioning Google. Somewhere between sixty and a hundred
million people in the United States have criminal records, and thats just counting
actual convictions, Sharon Dietrich, the litigation director of Community Legal
Services, in Philadelphia, told me. The consequences of having a criminal record
are onerous and getting worse all the time, because of the Web. Dietrich and
others have joined in what has become known as the expungement movement,
which calls for many criminal convictions to be sealed or set aside after a given
period of time. Around thirty states currently allow some version of expungement.
Dietrich and her allies have focussed on trying to cleanse records from the
databases maintained by commercial background-check companies. But Google
would remain a problem even if the law were changed. Back in the day, criminal
records kind of faded away over time, Dietrich said. They existed, but you couldnt
find them. Nothing fades away anymore. I have a client who says he has a harder
time finding a job now than he did when he got out of jail, thirty years ago.
Misuse of public records threatens to undermine ordinary

peoples lives
Michael Gregg, Chief Operating Officer of Superior Solutions, May 23, 2014
"Do You Have a Right to Privacy... From Google?" Huffington Post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-gregg/do-you-have-a-right-topr_b_5378585.html (accessed 10/5/2014)
There are no U.S. laws that require Google or any other "data controlling" company
(like Yahoo, Bing, etc.) to remove Internet search results about you -- with the
exception of minors. This is further complicated by the fact that most negative
events a person might encounter in his or her life -- such as a divorce, home
foreclosure, wage garnishment, lawsuits, etc. -- are public records, registered by the
government, so getting those removed, like the Spanish plaintiff in the Google
Search EU lawsuit, is unlikely to happen anytime soon. There are many sites that
sell or provide personal information, such as ZabaSearch.com and Spokeo.com.
Right to be forgotten protects the disenfranchised

Patricia J. Williams, professor of law at Columbia University, September 17,
2014
"The Right to Be Forgotten," The Nation,
http://www.thenation.com/article/181658/right-be-forgotten#
A recent ruling by the European Court recognizes a right to be forgotten. This is
derived from a right, originally accorded to criminals who had served their time, to
have their records expunged so that theyre able to start life over. It is a right
premised on the possibility of rehabilitationnot popular in Americas highly
Page 98
punitive culture. But in Europe, the right to be forgotten has become a cause that
extends beyond criminal history to a more general concern that in cyberspace, we
never grow past the moment of our greatest humiliation, and that in the long run
this record will make us a less mobile society. We risk becoming serfs to our surfing
history, as well as pawns to be experimented on by companies, like Facebook,
whose business is data. The European Court found that search engines like Google
must remove information that is inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant when
a member of the public so requests. The ruling seems broad enough to apply to
resolved debts, revenge porn, indeed any information that affects peoples honor,
dignity or privacy.
Page 99
Right To Be Forgotten Doesnt Undermine Public

Interests
The right can balance publicly relevant with personal (and
publicly irrelevant) information
Renato Opice Blum, attorney, economist and president of the IT Advisory Board of
Fecomercio, September 1, 2013
"The Right to Be Forgotten in Brazil," The Privacy Advisor,
https://privacyassociation.org/news/a/the-right-to-be-forgotten-in-brazil/ (accessed
10/4/2014)
Thus, material and public facts, whose effects directly impact society, need to
remain accessible as they form part of the history of the nation. However, every
person should have guaranteed to them the right that their personal life and
information is protected. Photos from college days, controversial views expressed
during adolescence and events of everyday private life that ordinarily would fade
with the passing of time should be removed if the subject so desires.
The right will not override legitimate public interests

David Smith, Deputy Commissioner and Director of Data Protection, European
Union, May 20, 2014
"Four things weve learned from the EU Google judgment," Information
Commisioner's Office Blog, http://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/fourthings-weve-learned-from-the-eu-google-judgment/ (accessed 10/4/2014)
Lets imagine an Adam Brown puts his name into a search engine. The list of results
includes a link to a webpage that contains personal information about him. This
judgment ruled that if the way that information is being used doesnt fit with
European data protection law, for instance if it is inadequate, irrelevant or outdated,
then Adam can request that the link is removed from future search results. The
search provider will have to comply unless there is an overriding public interest.
Regulators will balance rights

Julia Fioretti, EU correspondent for Reuters, focusing on telecoms, digital issues,
and transport, September 18, 2014
"EU regulators agree on guidelines for 'right to be forgotten' complaints," Reuters,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/18/us-google-eu-privacyidUSKBN0HC26K20140918 (accessed 10/4/2014)
European regulators have agreed on criteria for judging appeals for the "right to be
forgotten", taking into account public profiles or crime for example, when search
engines such as Google turn down requests to have information deleted from search
results.
Page 100
Right To Be Forgotten Is Necessary For Autonomy

RTBF restores humans ability to make their own decisions
about the present and future
Kate Connolly, British correspondent for the Guardian, April 4, 2013
"Right to erasure protects people's freedom to forget the past, says expert," The
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/apr/04/right-erasureprotects-freedom-forget-past (accessed 10/4/2014)
And for Viktor Mayer-Schnberger, it's not just about the legal, moral and technical
arguments but about what it is to be human. "The more I've worked on data
protection over the past 20 years, the more I've realised that at the heart of this,
what matters as much as the privacy aspect is the issue of human decisionmaking," said Mayer-Schnberger, professor of internet governance at the Oxford
Internet Institute. "Humans need to make decisions about the present and the
future. The beauty of the human brain is that we forget, which enables us to think in
the present. That is necessary to help us make decisions."
The right to be forgotten allows human autonomy by

facilitating the self-creation of our personalities
Paul Ford, programmer and creator of SavePublishing.com, July 17, 2014
"The Case for Scrubbing Search Results," Bloomberg Businessweek,
http://businessweekme.com/Bloomberg/newsmid/190/newsid/20 (accessed
10/5/2014)
The tech industry is excited to talk about the next billion Internet users, but the Web
wasn't designed with them in mind. We have collectively ceded to Google the right
to define our public personas, but it's a consumer product, not a public trust. By
granting the right to be forgotten to its citizens, the EU will allow them to shape
their own personas.
Page 101
Right To Be Forgotten: Autonomy Impacts

Autonomy is a prerequisite for human well being; denial of
autonomy increases dehumanization
Michael Pendlebury, Professor of Philosophy at North Carolina State University,
April 2004
"Individual Autonomy and Global Democracy," Theoria,
http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/philo/pendlebury/documents/IndivAutonomyandGlobalDe
mocracy.pdf (accessed 10/5/2014)
Individual autonomy is a distinctively human value that is required for human wellbeing. It is also a good for which human beings have a deeply rooted, natural drive.
I want to do it myself, says the toddler, grasping for nascent autonomy in the face
of his parents inclination to take the easy option and do it for him. Those who are
enslaved and oppressed usually resent their lack of autonomy unless they have
been completely dehumanized, and are ready to resist when there is a reasonable
chance of changing or alleviating their conditions. Those who enjoy some autonomy
cling to it and will not give it up unless the price becomes unbearable.
Individual autonomy is necessary for democracy and human

rights
Michael Pendlebury, Professor of Philosophy at North Carolina State University,
April 2004
"Individual Autonomy and Global Democracy," Theoria,
http://www.ncsu.edu/chass/philo/pendlebury/documents/IndivAutonomyandGlobalDe
mocracy.pdf (accessed 10/5/2014)
Individual autonomy is, therefore, an important human good. There are several
reasons why it should also be regarded as a fundamental political value given the
ideals of democracy and human rights, which I will take for granted. In terms of the
ideal of democracy, the legitimacy of the state depends upon the rational consent
of its citizens, and this in turn presupposes autonomy on their part. At the same
time, given that institutionalized government is essential in all but very small scale
societies, the claims of democracy are underpinned by the value of autonomy, for
democracy is the form of government most compatible with and acceptable to
autonomous citizens.
Autonomy is necessary to avoid conflicts, achieve justice, and

maintain a diverse society
Chikako Endo, Professor of Politics and International Relations, University of
Oxford, 2008
"The Idea of Autonomy in Liberal Democratic Citizenship," Northern PSA
Postgraduate Conference Papers,
http://www.pol.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0015/15630/Chikako_Endo.doc
Nevertheless, autonomous reflection on the part of citizens is crucially important for
common life, especially in a context of diversity. Autonomous reflection on ones
own commitments in light of those of others is necessary for finding mutually
acceptable terms of coexistence that cannot be supported simply by unreflectively
Page 102
asserting ones own preferences. Moreover, rational reflection on ones

commitments from the perspectives of others is important for respecting the plural
claims to justice in a diverse society, which may be repressed or marginalized where
prevailing social conventions defy critical scrutiny.
Page 103
Privacy Rights Are Vital

Privacy rights are vital and are threatened by technological
expansion
Michael Gregg, Chief Operating Officer of Superior Solutions, May 23, 2014
"Do You Have a Right to Privacy... From Google?" Huffington Post,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-gregg/do-you-have-a-right-topr_b_5378585.html (accessed 10/5/2014)
The right to privacy is one of the hallmarks of America's civil liberties, but in today's
increasingly technological age, this right is failing to keep up with a growing number
of online threats. From Google Search's exhaustive indexing of personal information,
to revenge porn sites and surveillance cameras, is personal privacy still relevant? In
the last year, people have become more aware of how they're being monitored and
commoditized by technology companies -- and the Edward Snowden revelations last
summer also drew attention to the government's role in this as well.
Internet privacy is as vital as any of the core human rights

United Press International, December 26, 2013
"UN Human Rights Chief: Internet Privacy a Basic Human Right," UPI Science News,
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2013/12/26/UN-human-rights-chiefInternet-privacy-a-basic-human-right/UPI-89091388092748/ (accessed 10/5/2014)
The United Nations' human rights chief says the uproar over mass surveillance
recalls the kind of response that helped defeat apartheid in South Africa. Navi Pillay,
the first non-white woman to serve as a high-court judge in South Africa, said
Internet privacy is as important as any other category of human rights.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has upheld a right to internet

privacy
Julie Machal-Fulks, internet and intellectual property attorney, 2011
"New Jersey Court Determines Internet Users Have a Constitutional Right to
Privacy," Scott Technology Attorneys Privacy and Security Blog,
http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/privacy_internet_constitutional_right_to_priva
cy.aspx (accessed 10/5/2014)
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently became one of the first courts in the
nation to determine that Internet users have a Constitutional right to privacy under
Article I of the New Jersey Constitution. Because of the ruling, a grand jury warrant
will be required before law enforcement officials can access personal information
about the Internet users.
Page 104

Violations of internet privacy are actionable whether
intentional or negligent
Ivan Hoffman, copyright and publishing attorney, 2001
"Rights of Privacy: An Overview," Ivanhoffman.com,

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/privacyrights.html (accessed 10/5/2014)
Thus, the cases involve those sites that either have adopted such policies, either for
marketing reasons or because they fall within the scope of a regulated area but due
to subsequent events, the sites have not adhered to those policies or sites in which,
even though there is no stated policy, the FTC has found that there were other
deceptive practices for which the information collected was being used. This
latter instance may be because there was some sort of implied statement on the
site about how information would be used. The violations may be either intentional
or negligent. The effect on the site visitors privacy is often the same.
Privacy is a fundamental human right

David Banisar, fellow at Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Simon Davies,
fellow at Privacy International, 1997
"Privacy and Human Rights: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Practice,"
gilc.org, http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html (accessed 10/5/2014)
Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other
international and regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key
values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of
the most important human rights issues of the modern age.
Privacy is necessary for human dignity, freedom, and human

rights
David Banisar, fellow at Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Simon Davies,
fellow at Privacy International, 1997
"Privacy and Human Rights: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Practice,"
gilc.org, http://gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html (accessed 10/5/2014)
Privacy is a key value which underpins human dignity and other key values such as
freedom of association and freedom of speech. Privacy is a basic human right and
the reasonable expectation of every person." Alan Westin, author of the seminal
1967 work "Privacy and Freedom," defined privacy as the desire of people to choose
freely under what circumstances and to what extent they will expose themselves,
their attitude and their behavior to others. According to Edward Bloustein, privacy is
an interest of the human personality. It protects the inviolate personality, the
individual's independence, dignity and integrity.
Page 105

Historical and cultural consensus establishes that privacy is
the most fundamental of all rights
Marc Rotenberg, Director of Electronic Privacy Information Center, October
1998
"Preserving Privacy in the Information Society," UNESCO Infoethics,
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/infoethics_2/eng/papers/paper_10.htm (accessed
10/5/2014)
Philosophers and ethicists have described privacy as indispensable characteristic of
personal freedom. Privacy is associated with autonomy, dignity, spirituality, trust,
and liberty. References to the value of private life may be found in the bible, the
history of Periclean Athens, as well as the history and culture of many people
around the world. The American jurist Louis Brandeis described privacy as "the right
to be let alone" and as "the most fundamental of all rights cherished by a free
people" in a famous article on the Right to Privacy (1890). Brandeis noted that
French law provided relief for invasions of private life and urged the adoption of a
similar legal right in the common law countries.
Both international and national law establish a right to privacy

Marc Rotenberg, Director of Electronic Privacy Information Center, October
1998
"Preserving Privacy in the Information Society," UNESCO Infoethics,
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/infoethics_2/eng/papers/paper_10.htm (accessed
10/5/2014)
The right of privacy is well established in international and national law. Following
the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and article 12
which speaks directly to the issue of privacy, similar provisions were adopted in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on
Human Rights, and other regional conventions and agreements.
Page 106
Privacy Rights Are Necessary For Democracy

Democracy is impossible without privacy
Eben Moglen, professor of law and legal history at Columbia University, May 28,
2014
"Is Privacy Essential for Democracy?" Watching the Watchers,

http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/2771/privacy-essential-democracy (accessed
10/5/2014)
Without secrecy, democratic self-government is impossible. Without secrecy, people
may not discuss public affairs with those they choose, excluding those with whom
they do not wish to converse. Anonymity is necessary for the conduct of democratic
politics. Not only must we be able to choose with whom we discuss politics, we must
also be able to protect ourselves against retaliation for our expressions of political
ideas. Autonomy is vitiated by the wholesale invasion of secrecy and privacy. Free
decision-making is impossible in a society where every move is monitored, as a
moment's consideration of the state of North Korea will show, as would any
conversation with those who lived through 20th-century totalitarianisms, or any
historical study of the daily realities of American chattel slavery before our civil war.
Privacy is the foundation of civil society and constitutional

democracy
Charles N. Quigley, Executive Director of the Center for Civic Education, 2014
"Constitutional Democracy," Center for Civic Education: Constitutional Democracy,
http://www.civiced.org/resources/publications/resource-materials/390-constitutionaldemocracy (accessed 10/5/2014)
Constitutional democracies recognize and protect the integrity of a private and
social realm comprised of family, personal, religious, and other associations and
activities. This space of uncoerced human association is the basis of a civil society
free from unfair and unreasonable intrusions by government.
Democracy requires trustful participation, which in turn

requires privacy
Jeffrey M. Arresty, President of Internet Bar Association, August 20, 2014
"Shaping the Rule of Law, Trust And Resolution in The Online Justice System,"
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-m-aresty/shaping-the-rule-oflaw-t_b_5516012.html (accessed 10/3/2014)
The creation of a technology-enabled system of effective democracy will require all
segments of society to participate. Industry has the opportunity to play a leading
role in helping shape a "justice layer" of internet communication on top of the
internet communication protocol it helped to build over 20 years ago. It will also
require the participation of academia, a non-fearing legal system, and the global
community as a whole to create a truly "we the people" system of online
governance.
Page 107
Right To Be Forgotten Necessary To Stop

Totalitarianism
Control of communications establishes totalitarianism and
eradicates human freedom
2014

10/5/2014)
The power of that Roman empire rested in its leaders' control of communications.
The Mediterranean was their lake. Across their European empire, from Scotland to
Syria, they pushed roads that 15 centuries later were still primary arteries of
European transportation. Down those roads the emperor marched his armies. Up
those roads he gathered his intelligence. The emperors invented the posts to move
couriers and messages at the fastest possible speed. Using that infrastructure, with
respect to everything that involved the administration of power, the emperor made
himself the best-informed person in the history of the world. That power eradicated
human freedom. "Remember," said Cicero to Marcellus in exile, "wherever you are,
you are equally within the power of the conqueror."
Twentieth century proves that invasions of privacy are

gateways to totalitarianism
2014

10/5/2014)
For almost everyone who lived through the 20th century -- at least its middle half -the idea that freedom was consistent with the procedures of totalitarianism was
self-evidently false. Hence, as we watch responses to Snowden's revelations we see
that massive invasion of privacy triggers justified anxiety among the survivors of
totalitarianism about the fate of liberty. To understand why, we need to understand
more closely what our conception of "privacy" really contains.
Page 108
Right To Be Forgotten Necessary To Stop

Totalitarianism
Data can be used by repressive totalitarian countries
Greg Sterling, Contributing Editor at Search Engine Land, September 29, 2014
"World War II, Communism Subtext In Right To Be Forgotten,"

Searchengineland.com, http://searchengineland.com/understanding-right-forgotten204454 (accessed 10/2/2014)
I was in Berlin recently and had a long talk with a German about the history of the
East German Secret Police, the Stasi. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989, but many
people still remember what life was like in the divided country. The communist
governments of Eastern Europe repressed millions through domestic spying,
monitoring and persecution in many ways they were successors to the Nazi
regime. In the West, GPS and location tracking is used to help smartphone owners
to find directions or look up nearby restaurants. In human-rights-denying regimes
like Chinas, smartphones can be used to monitor and track anti-government
dissidents.
Twentieth century totalitarianism proves we cant trust

governments or corporations with personal data
The roots of European data protection come from the bloody history of the
twentieth century, Mayer-Schnberger said. The Communists fought the Nazis
with an ideology based on humanism, hoping that they could bring about a more
just and fair society. And what did it look like? It turned into the same totalitarian
surveillance society. With the Stasi, in East Germany, the task of capturing
information and using it to further the power of the state is reintroduced and
perfected by the society. So we had two radical ideologies, Fascism and
Communism, and both end up with absolutely shockingly tight surveillance states.
Following the fall of Communism, in 1989, the new democracies rewrote their laws
to put in place rules intended to prevent the recurrence of these kinds of abuses. In
subsequent years, the E.U. has promulgated a detailed series of laws designed to
protect privacy. According to Mayer-Schnberger, There was a pervasive belief that
we cant trust anybodynot the state, not a companyto keep to its own role and
protect the rights of the individual.
Google earns money off of publicity of our personal

information; people have a right to expect privacy from this
money making
Eric Posner, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School and a Fellow
of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, May 14, 2014
"We All Have the Right to Be Forgotten," Slate,

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/05/the_eur
Page 109
opean_right_to_be_forgotten_is_just_what_the_internet_needs.html (accessed
10/3/2014)
One response is that we are better off with an unfettered Web because now we can
learn peoples entire history before lending money to them, hiring them, renting
apartments to them, or dating them. Our loss in privacy is offset by our gain from
the loss of privacy of others. But U.S. law should do more to protect our privacy than
it does right now. That means the type of balancing endorsed by the European Court
of Justice. Privacy allows us to experiment, make mistakes, and start afresh if we
mess up. It allows us to reinvent ourselves, or at least maintains the valuable
illusion that reinvention is possible. It is this potential for rehabilitation, for second
chances, that is under assault from Google. By selling ads against it, Google makes
money on private information about you and me. Shouldnt the company pay the
modest cost of ensuring that long-ago embarrassing information, of little meaning
to others, doesnt turn up at the top of a search? In the old days, Europeans who
wanted to forget their pasts would come to America for a fresh start. Today, one
would head in the opposite direction.
Page 110
Speech Restrictions Bolster Speech

Freedoms
Restrictions on speech can open the door for other authors to
create speech, copyright laws prove.
Alan E. Garfield, Professor of Law and H. Albert Young Fellow in Constitutional Law
at Widener University School of Law, January 1, 2007, The Case of First Amendment
Limits on Copyright Law, p. 1189
In one sense, all of copyright law is censorial. Copyright creates property
rights in expression and punishes those who use the expression without
permission. But the restraints copyright places on speech are in most
instances a necessary price for encouraging authors to create speech. By
giving authors property rights in their expression, copyright law makes
the marketplace of ideas richer, not poorer. Copyright law also protects
free speech by withholding protection for facts and ideas. Thus, copyright
ensures that the property rights it creates do not unduly interfere with
the free exchange of information and ideas. The fair use defense provides
further free speech protection by allowing an author's expression to be
used in instances in which there is an overriding public interest. All of this
suggests that copyright law ordinarily poses little danger as a vehicle for
censorship.
The Supreme Court has noted that regulations can actually

help to protect rights under the First Amendment, rather than
limit them; evidence proves.
Finally, if the speech does infringe other rights, the court must consider the
value of the speech in order to decide whether it should nevertheless be
privileged under the First Amendment. This judgment also requires a
consideration of content. The final point deserves elaboration, because it
highlights a fact that is generally overlooked that it is sometimes necessary to
take content into account in order to afford greater protection to the most
valuable forms of speech. This point is well illustrated by the Supreme
Courts decision last Term in Bartnicki v. Vopper. In that case, an unknown
person illegally intercepted and recorded a cellular telephone conversation, in which
two officials of a teachers union discussed a proposed strike and made vague
Page 111
threats to use violence against school board officials. The tape recording found its
way to Vopper, a radio commentator, who played it repeatedly on his public affairs
program, in violation of a federal statute that made it unlawful to intentionally
disclose the contents of a communication that one knows or has reason to know
was illegally intercepted. Invoking the statute, the union officials sued Vopper for
broadcasting the tape; in defense, he argued that the statute violated the First
Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens observed that the
statute was designed to protect privacy and to encourage individuals to
freely engage in private speech, without fear that their conversations
would be overheard by or disclosed to others. Acknowledging that these
were interests of the highest order, Stevens left open the possibility
that the statute would be held constitutional in most of its applications.
Page 112
Restrictions are Necessary to Create

a Safe Space for Free Speech (1/2)
Hate groups are notorious for blocking the speech abilities of
others; regulations are necessary
Alexander Tsesis, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Chicago Department of Law,
2001, Hate In Cyberspace: Regulating Hate Speech on the Internet, p. 837-838
Advocates of an unregulated Internet place insufficient import on the role of a
representative democracy in protecting individual rights.'" The ephemeral
communities of cyberspace include the democratically and the
autocratically minded. It is unrealistic that hate groups will protect the
rights of the very individuals whose interests they are attacking. Bigots
are more likely to use a self-governing and anarchic system of cyberspace
to unscrupulously abuse their power to block outgroup access to
democratic institutions. This would have a destabilizing effect on society
at large, not just on Internet users. An unbridled Internet would be
detrimental to democracy and to the ideals of egalitarianism. It would
hoard power to the strong and provide a breeding ground for hate groups.
In sum, the Internet is a social space through which events occur via
electromagnetic waves. Like other electromagnetic occurrences such as telephone
conversations, illegal transactions fall within the purview of states. Much like
governments are empowered to regulate activities occurring within their borders, so
too they can regulate this new social space known as cyberspace.
Restrictions can also work to enhance free speech by creating

a safe space where the media does not citizens' ability to
exercise autonomy.
Case for Regulation, p. 47
Since this role must be played by the institutions of society's basic
structure, regulations may not only restrict but also guarantee the fair
value of free speech and, consequently, enable freedom of expression and
communication. Press freedom is not in any way innocuous since it can
(and it does) harm citizens' ability to exercise collective and individual
Page 113
autonomy. We must have in mind that the structure of the media systems
determine the access citizens have to communicative liberties. Rules
regarding a fair distribution of the opportunities to establish
communication, to influence the political agenda and, more broadly,
society's understanding of itself, also contribute to enhance free speech.
Preventing media oligopolies and promoting different, public, forms of
operating media outlets can be a good way of developing the fair value of
communicative liberties
Page 114
Restrictions are Necessary to Create

a Safe Space for Free Speech (2/2)
In order for freedom of speech to be truly exercised, it must
have a safe environment to thrive.
Alexander Tsesis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law,
2002, Prohibiting Incitement on the Internet, p. 11-12
Another of Justice Holmes contributions to First Amendment jurisprudence was the
marketplace of ideas doctrine: [M]en may come to believe even more than
they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate
good desired is better reached by free trade in ideasthat the best test of
truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition
of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes
safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our
Constitution. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the continuing authority
of this doctrine in a variety of different contexts. At first glance it might seem
Holmes asserted that the interchange of ideas ultimately leads to unquestionable
analytical conclusions tending to improve self-expression. A close inspection of this
doctrine reveals, somewhat surprisingly, that it sounds in social relativism rather
than objectivism. To be consistent with his philosophic writings, Holmes could not
have meant to forge the marketplace of ideas doctrine to protect fundamental
rights because he rejected [i]nalienable human rights and absolute principles of
law. The principal impetus behind laws, according to Holmes, is the will of those
who are in power: All that can be expected from modern improvements is
that legislation should easily and quickly, yet not too quickly, modify itself
in accordance with the will of the de facto supreme power in the
community. The object of all legislation must be the greatest good of
the greatest number.
The Supreme Court has deemed it necessary for there to be a

safe space for speech by finding what is unprotectable speech.
Rebecca Tushnet, Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center, 2000,
Copyright as a Model for Free Speech Law: What Copyright Has in Common with
Anti- Pornography Laws, Campaign Finance Reform, and Telecommunications
Regulation, p. 10
There are two related points here: First, the ideal expression dichotomy
recognizes no value in preserving a "breathing space" for free speech. In
other areas, the Supreme Court has announced that we must tolerate a
Page 115
certain amount of valueless, destructive speech, because we want to

avoid self-censorship by speakers who fear that juries or judges might find
them liable. If courts do not err on the side of finding unprotectable ideas
instead of protectable expression, theyrun the risk of suppressing
important speech. Second, the relationship of ideas to expression explains why
expression deserves strong First Amendment protection. Even if we are confident in
theory that a thesaurus and some thought will produce an alternate way to say
almost anything with almost as much grace, courts never actually make this inquiry
and it would be hard to imagine them doing so. To decide whether it is possible to
express a particular idea in a different way, we have to determine what is idea-ish
about the idea and what is its expressive raiment.
Page 116
Regulations are Necessary for

National Security (1/3)
Restricting freedom of speech when the state is threatened is
justified; more restrictions are necessary.
Expression, p. 238
Important precedents, such as the Invention Secrecy Act and the Atomic
Energy Act, restrict scientific information from being circulated widely.
Here, the advent of modern technology suggests ever greater threats to
the state posed by the expansion of scientific knowledgemaking calls for
restrictions in this category more likely. Indeed, since 9/11 demands to
restrict the publication of even basic microbiology have proliferated.
Across the Atlantic, while informal controls accompanied knowledge-based
speech for the greater part of the twentieth century, recent export control
laws limit the transfer of scientific information within Great Britain.
Moreover, where the state acts in a privileged position vis--vis speechas either
employer or information-holderthe record in both countries demonstrates extreme
judicial deference to the Executive and substantial inroads into free expression.
Unrestricted speech can lead to further terror against the

government and the populous, leading to further conflict.
Expression, p. 236
Simultaneously, unrestricted speech leaves terrorist organizations free to
coerce the government and the population. And related drawbacks attend:
Anxiety may have a dramatic influence on elections. It may spur an aggressive
state reaction, undermining state political legitimacy and playing into the
hands of those engaged in violence. Fear may undermine the economy,
affecting tourism, travel, and investment. It also may ultimately
emasculate citizens belief in liberal, democratic values.
Page 117
The internet is a medium for possible terror activity;

threatening discourse should be limited.
2002, Prohibiting Incitement on the Internet, p. 3
Hate groups have been using the Internet for years. The World Trade
Center bombing in New York on September 11, 2001 further enkindled
their fury, not at terrorists but against traditional scapegoats. The most
extreme of them, and there are many organizations in this category, save
their sharpest barbs for attacking the civil liberties of minorities. The
relatively inexpensive technologies necessary to run computer servers
have enabled hate groups to rapidly increase their presence on the
Internet by spreading ideologies through electronic pamphlets, books, and
a variety of multimedia documents. They can also engage in real time
discussions with similarly minded ideological devotees, even though they are
physically hundreds of miles apart. These group meetings, think tanks, and strategy
sessions can either be public or the messages can be encrypted for secure
conversations with limited audiences.
Page 118

Speech restrictions are good to fight terror.
Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA Law School, June 21, 2010, "Speech
That Aids Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and Strict Scrutiny," The Volokh
Conspiracy at the Washington Post, http://www.volokh.com/2010/06/21/speech-thataids-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-strict-scrutiny/ (accessed 8/25/14)
And all these things, both those coordinated with the groups (the first paragraph)
and those done entirely independently will undermine the Governments
interest in combating terrorism[, which] is an urgent objective of the
highest order. The undermining will be indirect, and will happen through
means such as increasing the groups perceived legitimacy, helping them
acquire more resources to engage in terrorism, and letting them reroute
their already-acquired resources to terrorism. (It might even embolden the
groups to keep fighting, in the hopes that if they hold out long enough,
the politicians who praise them might gain power and change American
foreign policy in a way that supports the groups.) But as the Court pointed
out in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, such indirect threats to the
compelling government interest may nonetheless be real threats.
Therefore, if one really takes seriously the Courts assertion which has
often been made in other cases that content-based speech restrictions
are constitutional if they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
state interest, all this speech, including the independent advocacy, could
be criminalized.
Gingrich argues that curtailing free speech is necessary to

fight terrorism.
Josh Gerstein, Staff Reporter of the Sun, November 29, 2006, "Gingrich:
Free Speech Should be Curtailed to Fight Terrorism," The New York Sun,
http://www.nysun.com/national/gingrich-free-speech-should-be-curtailed-tofight/44302/ (accessed 8/25/14)
A former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, is causing a stir by proposing that
free speech may have to be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. "We need
to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a
city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're
unfortunate," Mr. Gingrich said Monday night during a speech in New
Hampshire. "We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a
level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the
scale of the threat."
Page 119

The Court has agreed, limiting speech that could threaten the
US with further acts of terror is important.
Daphne Barak-Erez, Visiting Professor Duke Law School and Professor of Law
and Stewart and Judy Colton Chair of Law and Security at Tel-Aviv University, and
David Scharia, PhD, LLM and Legal Officer-Counter Terrorism Committee
Executive Directorate for the United Nations Security Council, 2011, Freedom of
Speech, Support for Terrorism, and the Challenge of Global Constitutional Law, p. 19
The Humanitarian Law Project decision of the United States Supreme
Court, already mentioned in the Introduction, reaffirms the approach of the Iqbal
case and offers another side route. Indeed, the decision did not directly deal with
incitement to terrorism. However, it demonstrated clear willingness to
prohibit speech when it is linked to a terrorist organization in a manner
that supports its activities. The Court regarded advocating for and
coordinating with foreign terrorist organizations as forms of providing
material support to such organizations. The effect of this decision on
freedom of speech cannot be underestimated. Indeed, the decision
presumably follows the U.S. freedom of speech jurisprudence in the sense
that it affirms a prohibition that abstains from addressing the content of
the speech and focuses only on the link between the speaker and a
terrorist organization. The Court stressed in this regard that [u]nder the
material-support statute, plaintiffs may say anything they wish on any
topic. They may speak and write freely about the PKK and LTTE, the governments
of Turkey and Sri Lanka, human rights, and international law. They may advocate
before the United Nations. At the same time, the Humanitarian Law Project
decision has the potential to limit freedom of speech far beyond contentbased prohibitions of the sort prevalent in Europe. It opens the door for
prohibiting any speech related to a terrorist organization, no matter how
peaceful it is, as long as it is expressed in coordination with or under the
direction of a terrorist organization.
Page 120
Restrictions Good for Rights

Protections
Freedom of speech should be contingent on the rights of
others; restrictions are beneficial for protection of citizens'
rights.
My contention is that, under the First Amendment, speech may be
regulated based on communicative impact when it unjustifiably violates
the rights of others. This approach to freedom of speech has deep roots in
American constitutional history. The eighteenth-century American
understanding of free speech was woven from many strands. Among the most
important, however, was the natural rights tradition. Liberty of speech, thought,
and belief were counted among the inherent and inalienable rights of individuals
rights that they would not part with when they established civil society and
government. Moreover, freedom of speech was a right that would be retained by
the citizens of a republic in order to supervise the government and check abuses of
power. As an inalienable right, free speech was not subject to regulation
for the common good in the way that more ordinary forms of liberty were.
Yet the freedom of speech was not absolute. Instead, like other
fundamental rights, it was limited by the rights of others. Speech that
invaded those rights (for example, by unjustifiably defaming others) was
wrongful and subject to regulation by law. In imposing such regulation,
the government did not violate freedom of speech, but rather fulfilled its
duty to protect the rights of other individuals. This understanding of free
speech informed the adoption not only of the First Amendment, but also of the
Fourteenth Amendment, which provided the basis for applying the First Amendment
to the states. In addition to this historical foundation, there is a strong normative
basis for the principle that free speech is limited by other rights. For the liberal
tradition, it is axiomatic that an individuals liberty is bounded by the equal liberty
of others. As Mill recognizes, this principle applies to free speech no less than to
other forms of liberty.
Page 121
Freedom of speech only reaches its full potential when the

rights of others are protected against defamatory speech and
the like.
As citizens, individuals have a right to participate in collective selfdetermination and other aspects of community life. One of the most
important ways in which they do so is through free speech. At the same
time, those who take part in common activities have an obligation to
respect the rights of other participants and the community as a whole.
This obligation is violated, for example, by intentionally making false and
defamatory statements about others in public debate, for speech of this
sort violates not only their own rights but also those of the community, by
undermining the integrity of public discourse on which democratic selfgovernment depends. By this point, the underlying form of the argument should
be clear. To justify freedom of speech and thought, one must appeal to notions of
freedom that go beyond these rights.
Page 122
Threatening Speech is Bad for

Adolescents (1/3)
The Supreme Court must do more to protect threatening
speech like cyberbullying.
Todd D. Erb, Note and Comment Editor for Arizona State Law Journal. J.D. Candidate
Sandra Day OConnor College of Law at Arizona State University, 2008, A Case for
Strengthening School District Jurisdiction to Punish Off-Campus Incidents of
Cyberbullying, p. 274
Although the Tinker standard allows schools to punish cyberbullying
incidents that escalate in a dramatic nature, it is absurd that courts
continually overlook the fact that bullies usually target specific
individuals, not the entire school environment. Bullies naturally pick on
weak individuals rather than large numbers of students. The effects of bullying may
be excruciating to bear for that individual, but the rest of the student body may not
even know about the bullying, much less feel its effects. Since bullying is often
individualized, there is a diminished chance that cyberbullying incidents
will cause a substantial or material disruption to the school
environment. It may cause a substantial or material disruption to one
students learning environment, but such a disruption would most likely
fail the high standard required in cases like J.S. Therefore, the legal
system has supplied mixed messages about bullying. A bully that harasses
another student will be subject to discipline as long as it occurs on campus, at a
school activity, or on the way to and from school. But the instant the bully
enters his home, sits down at his computer, and spends hours creating a
web site to intimidate, scare, and ruin the reputation of another student,
he will face no consequences for his actions. It is a good time to be a
cyberbully.
Further restrictions on speech is crucial in the digital age to

protect America's youth.
20, 2008, Student Speech Rights in the Digital Age, p. 1030
Permitting school officials to restrict student speech in the digital media
expands the authority of school officials to clamp down on juvenile
expression in a way previously unthinkable. For young people today,
digital media is an essential part of their everyday lives. Almost all of
them are accessing websites on the Internet; many have social networking
Page 123
sites, produce and edit videos to post on YouTube.com and elsewhere, and
engage in instant messaging. In addition, the use of cell phones
particularly sending text messages and taking photographs and video
footagehas become an increasingly important way in which young
people communicate with each other. The importance of these new
technologies to the development of not only their social and cultural
connections but also their identities should not be underestimated.
Although Morse provided little guidance to lower courts confronting off-campus
student speech cases, it did continue the trend of the Court to move away
from the robust vision of student speech rights it embraced in Tinker v.
Des Moines Independent School District rights that could be overcome only
in the most compelling of circumstancesin favor of emphasizing the need to defer
to school authorities.
Page 124

Adolescents (2/3)
Adolescents use digital media for their creative expression,
but at times, they use these medium for cyberbullying and
threatening discourse instead, which could be aided through
more regulation.
Cases and news articles indicate that adolescents use digital media for
various forms of expressive activity. Much of the expression that has been the
subject of litigation seems quite harmless and at worst tasteless. Other
adolescent speech, however, is not as innocuous. The death of Megan
Meier, who committed suicide after she was tormented on MySpace, has
brought national attention to the problem of cyber-bullying and
harassment. Rather than harass their classmates in the locker room,
hallways, and bathrooms, students engage in electronic aggression,
often in the form of malicious rumors or humiliating or threatening speech
spread on social networking sites, e-mails, instant messages, chat rooms,
text messages, and blogs. In Pennsylvania, for example, law enforcement
officials have been investigating the dissemination of pornographic videos and
photographs of two high school girls transmitted by cell phones to dozens of the
girls classmates and to other members of the general public. Poking fun at teachers
and harassing other students is not new conduct. Rather, what is new in the digital
age is that adults can see what minors are saying much more easily. Before the
Internet, in order to obtain access to the inner thoughts of the younger generation
school officials would have to confiscate passed notes, illicit underground
newspapers, or the occasional personal diary inadvertently brought to
school. Now, school officials can simply log onto the Internet to see those
same inner thoughts, and when they see something they do not like, many
of them react by punishing the student responsible. As a result, much
student expression that would have escaped the attention of school
officials in another time now is the subject of suspensions, expulsion, and
other forms of significant punishment. The challenge facing courts is how
much authority
Page 125
Regulations work to protect America's youth from pervasive

speech in all types of medium.
Children from Controversial Speech, p. 4
The public is concerned about what children are hearing and seeing, and to some
extent for good reason. Popular concern about the volume of exposure to various
forms of media and about its content has spilled over into political discourse. Even
before the shootings at Columbine High, Senator Robert Byrd proclaimed on
the Senate floor:
The political and social environment in which parents must today raise
their children is, unfortunately, an environment in which anything
goes . . . . Profanity, vulgarity, sex and violence are pervasive in television
programming, in the movies, and in much of todays books that pretend to
pass for literature. The nation is inexorably sinking toward the lowest
common denominator in its standards and values. Havent we had
enough? In response to such anxieties, both federal and state governments
have sought to reduce the exposure of children to arguably unsuitable
material. Regulations aim at communications that emanate from peers, as
well as those that appear in books, newspapers and magazines, radio
broadcasts, rock music, movies, broadcast and cable television, card
games, video games, telecommunications, and computer materials-including the Internet.
Page 126

Adolescents (3/3)
Cyberbullying has become an ever-increasing problem
affecting the well-being of students that is difficult to
supervise as schools cannot currently legally regulate this
speech.
Shaheen Shariff, Assistant Professor of Integrated Studies at McGill University,
Dianne L. Hoff, Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of
Maine, January 2007, Cyber bullying: Clarifying Legal Boundaries for School
Supervision in Cyberspace, p. 77
Students, especially adolescent girls, are increasingly victims (and
sometimes perpetrators) of degrading, threatening, and/or sexually
explicit messages and images conveyed electronically via cell phones,
email, chat rooms, and personal online profiles (Barak, 2005; Herring, 2002;
Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004; Blair, 2003; Campbell, 2005; Jackson, Cassidy & Brown,
2006). As Harmon (2004) observes, the internet has provided young people
with an arsenal of weapons for social cruelty. The phenomenon is called
cyber bullying, which Patchin and Hinduja (2006) define as willful and
repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text (p. 152).
Cyber bullying has roots in traditional bullying that takes place in the
physical school setting; however, the medium of cyber-space allows it to
flourish in distinct ways creating numerous challenges. Cyber bullying is
especially insidious because of its anonymous nature. Moreover, it allows
participation by an infinite audience. In the school context, it is dangerous
because it most often takes place outside school hours on home
computers, making it difficult, if not impossible, to supervise.
The cyberbullying environment is similar to Golding's Lord of

the Flies: students can terrorize with little supervision and
regulation.
Shaheen Shariff, Assistant Professor of Integrated Studies at McGill University,
Dianne L. Hoff, Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of
Maine, January 2007, Cyber bullying: Clarifying Legal Boundaries for School
Supervision in Cyberspace, p. 77-78
Page 127
In that regard, cyber bullying is a modern day version of Goldings (1954)

Lord of the Flies. In this classic tale, Golding places a small group of schoolboys
on a deserted island, where the rule-makers are removed, compelling the boys to
deal with the resulting vacuum. Their first thoughts are to look for adult authority
figures: Wheres the man with the megaphone? Arent there any grownups at
all? I dont think so. The fair boy said this solemnly; but then the delight of a
realized ambition overcame him (p. 7). The parallels between what happens on that
island and what is happening today in schools are astounding. Left alone with no
supervision, for example, Goldings boys harass, then terrorize, and
ultimately kill one another. Cyber bullying similarly puts students on a
virtual island with no supervision and very few rules, which allows bullying
to escalate to dangerous, even life-threatening levels. Further, the boys on
the island realize that being evil is easier when they assume a different persona,
and so they paint their faces for anonymity before they attack. Cyber-bullies are
no different; they hide behind pseudonyms (The Avenger) and well-disguised
IP addresses, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the victim to
determine the source of the threat. This anonymous nature of cyber bullying is
perhaps the most troubling of all, for it leaves victims wondering which of their
classmates might be the Avenger. Indeed, the entire class might be involved. For
a victim of cyber bullying, attending school, confronting unknown
perpetrators is like being on an island -- there is no escape.
Page 128
Regulations Needed Due to New

Technology
Hate speech online needs regulated, as new technologies have
unintended consequences the government must avoid.
in Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity Program at Stanford University,
2001, Responses to Internet Sites: Is Speech too Free in Cyberspace?, p. 288
Consequently, the American debate regarding censorship of hate speech is moving
from traditional forms to newer ones found on-line. In particular, the Internet
has become a key organizing tool for hate groups. As scholars have noted,
the Internet is a powerful forum of communication with its broad reach,
interactivity and multi-media capability to disseminate information. The
Web is providing an unprecedented vehicle for forging communities and
making communcation quicker, easier and cheaper. These features
inevitably result in questions about impact, especially when viewed as
empowering racists and other extremists. As Robert McChesney points out,
all new communication technologies have unanticipated and unintended
effects, and one function of policy-making is to understand them so we
may avoid or minimize the undesirable ones. Arguably, the proliferation
of hate activity on-line may be one byproduct that deserves to be
minimized.
The new digital age has led to a new medium of

communication, particularly for adolescents.
Digital technology is part of almost every aspect of a teenagers life.
Computers, mobile phones, and the Internet play critical roles in their
social and cultural development. Given their dependence on and expertise
with digital media, this generation of teenagers is frequently referred to
as the Net Generation, Digital Generation, and cyberkids.
Adolescents use technology to communicate with one another and with
the general public through both computer-mediated communications
(such as e-mail, instant messaging, online chatrooms, video sharing, and
social networking sites) and mobile telephony (live conversations, text
messaging, and video sharing). Of course, not all young people have cell
phones or access to computers at home or school, and not all of those who have
such access have become engaged users of the technology. But it cannot be denied
that rapidly increasing numbers of young people have become dependent
upon their computers and cell phones to communicate with each other and
with the world at large. In 2004, the Pew Research Foundation reported
Page 129
that eighty-seven percent of people aged twelve to seventeen had some

Internet access; undoubtedly that percentage has increased in the last
four years. Social networking sites are extremely popular with teenagers.
Page 130
Regulations Do Not Go Far Enough

Current regulations may not cover hate speech, which allows
dehumanizing rhetoric to be covered legally.
in Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity Program at Stanford University, 2001,
Responses to Internet Sites: Is Speech too Free in Cyberspace?, p. 315-316
Current legal remedies such as the Brandenburg test may be missing the
real harm of racist indoctrination, which may not be immediately apparent
or verifiable. For instance, hate expressions tend to encourage a set of
beliefs that develop gradually and that often can lie dormant until
conditions are ripe for a climate of moral exclusion and subsequent crimes
against humanity. As noted previously, communication is the primary
means by which psychological distancing occurs. Arguably, it may be the
long-term, not short-term, effects of hate expression that are potentially
more far reaching.168 Based on this premise, some hate rhetoric
espoused on white supremacist Web pages may exist on the borderline of
First Amendment protection and pose a potential danger that merits
monitoring or even safeguards for protection. As Tsesis notes, it is not the
abstract viewpoints that are problematic. Rather, it is the expressions intending
to elicit persecution or oppression that often begin with dehumanizing
rhetoric.
Hate groups are flourishing on the internet due to lack of

restrictions on behalf of the government.
Alexander Tsesis, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Chicago Department of Law,
2001, Hate In Cyberspace: Regulating Hate Speech on the Internet, p. 838 -839
Hate groups have found a haven in the United States for their Internet
sites because the Supreme Court has significantly limited the
government's ability to prohibit the distribution of racist, provocative
materials. While the Court has found statutes constitutional that augment
penalties for crimes inspired by hate, it has held unconstitutional laws
penalizing the use of hate speech against historically persecuted
outgroups. Therefore, groups and individuals can legally use Internet
servers, located in the United States, to advocate persecution, oppression,
and holy war, so long as they do not explicitly call for immediate violent
actions.
Page 131
The internet needs to be regulated; not all patrons of the web

have good intentions.
However, not all Internet polemicists are democratically inclined. The
expansive reach of data transmission over the information superhighway
has provided hate mongers with a huge forum to develop networks of
intolerance, awaiting the opportunity to act against outgroup rights. As of
2001, there were approximately 4,000 Web sites devoted to
ethnocentrism, racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia. These sites thrive
in the United States because of the few controls on their activities. In this
country, the espousal of a doctrine placing virtually unencumbered free
speech above all other democratic values sometimes comes in conflict
with indices linking hate speech to bias crimes. This article argues that the
state should prohibit persons and organizations from intentionally conveying racial
animus through the Internet when their messages are substantially likely to produce
bias motivated malfeasance. propaganda.
Page 132
Restrictions Good for Autonomy,

Identity, and Personal Safety (1/3)
Restrictions on threatening speech like defamation are
necessary to protect one's individual identity.
Chaplinsky also mentions libel as an unprotected category of speech. In contrast
to insulting words, which injure their target directly, libel causes injury
indirectly by damaging an individuals reputation, or the way that others
perceive her. Once again, while Chaplinsky explains the harm of
defamation in terms of the social interest in order and morality, the
harm is better understood from a rights- based perspective. Individual
personality has an important social dimension. For purposes of social
interaction, an individuals identity is largely determined by how others
view her. To make false statements about a person that lower her in the
esteem of the community constitutes a serious wrong to personality.
Chaplinsky observed that laws against libel had never been thought to raise
any Constitutional problem because such speech contributed little if
anything to the search for truth.
Hate speech must be regulated to prevent violence, which is

more important than sacrificing individual liberty in
expression.
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court recognized another
category of unprotected speech, insulting or fighting words, which it
defined as those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to
incite an immediate breach of the peace. Such words, Justice Murphy
asserted, had such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit
that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest
in order and morality. While the fighting words doctrine has been criticized for
sacrificing individual liberty to social order, I believe that it is defensible from a
rights-based perspective. Speech can provoke responsive violence in several ways.
First, words can constitute a form of wrongful aggression by conveying a
Page 133
message of personal injury and imminent violence. Faced with such a

threat to personal security, the target may respond with force, or with
abusive language that soon results in violent confrontation. Second,
insulting speech can provoke violence by attacking the targets dignity. In
both cases, the speech violates the rights of the target as well as the
communitys right to the peace. Finally, speech can constitute a challenge
to fight. Even when this does not violate the targets right to security (because the
challenge can be refused), it nevertheless threatens the public peace.
Page 134

The marketplace of ideas must be void of hostile rhetoric for it
to truly thrive, or discrimination will run rampant.
Hostile expressions do not contribute to the free flow of ideas. They do
not test the legitimacy of democratic institutions because their very aim is
to exclude outgroups from participating in policy debates. Just as with
other anti-discrimination laws, such as those prohibiting exclusionary
employment practice and housing discrimination, the prohibition of
virulent animus would improve race relations and diminish arbitrary hate.
Organizations purposefully using new technologies to disseminate hatred, intent on
hurting identifiable groups, can broaden their audience and substantially increase
the likelihood of causing their desired end. For instance, given enough time and
repetition, flashy Web sites advocating the piousness of committing suicide
bombings may enkindle aggression against the targeted group. This is particularly
true when the electronic transmissions are part of a concerted campaign to delegitimize the aspirations of a hated group. The marketplace of ideas makes no
provisions for dealing with this modern day dilemma.
Restrictions on space are good for privacy rights.


Delivery of the protestors' message at or near these clinics has raised two
distinct spatial problems. First, the space around the clinic must be
generally free of obstructions, so that patrons can gain access to the
property. Second, legislators and courts have sought to provide clinic
visitors some minimal "personal space" or privacy as they seek to visit the
clinics. There must be, they have reasoned, some line past which a
protester cannot advance in order to make his case, an embodied space
that ensures free physical movement and psychological repose. Legislatures
and courts have developed two distinct spatial tactics to address these issues. First,
in the early 1990s, "buffer zones" became the chosen spatial technique for
ensuring patients' access to clinic properties. Federal and state legislatures
instituted various lines or boundaries to control the spaces around abortion clinics.
Courts fashioned injunctive relief that also included specific spatial dimensions.
Second, to protect patients' privacy and repose, the law developed what
has come to be known as "the bubble." To illustrate, Colorado's law, enacted in
1993 and upheld in Hill v. Colorado, required protesters to stay eight feet from
Page 135
anyone entering or leaving an abortion clinic, as long as the clinic visitor was within
100 feet of the entrance. The Court characterized this statute as a contentneutral "regulation of the places where some speech may occur."'
Page 136

The Supreme Court has upheld buffer zones at abortion clinics
to protect the safety and privacy of the patrons that seek
assistance from such establishments.

The State's interests in protecting access to the clinics and women's right
to privacy (on the public sidewalks) were deemed sufficiently important
and unrelated to the suppression of any social or political message."' The
100-foot buffer zone, along with an 8-foot embodied bubble, were
considered adequately tailored to serve the State's important interests.'
In Madsen v. Women's Health Center, the Court upheld an injunctive
"speech-free buffer zone" that prohibited all demonstrations within 36
feet of an abortion clinic. This effectively displaced anti-abortion
protesters. For instance, the buffer zone rendered the passing of information to
prospective patients impossible. Notably, in Madsen the Court purported to impose
a standard for injunctions that it described as "somewhat more, stringent" than the
usual time, place, and manner standard.

8 June 2015 Anonymous Free Speech

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 June 2015 Anonymous Free Speech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

Please dont share this material with

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

Resolved: The benefits of First

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

WEST COAST DEBATE

Visit our web page!

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

WEST COAST DEBATE.............................................................................................. 3

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

Regulations Do Not Go Far Enough........................................................................45

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

Freedom of Speech Good for Adolescents (1/2).....................................................86

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

Free Expression is important

Why is access to freedom of expression important? Freedom of expression is a

elements of unequal access to freedom of expression.

Access to helpful information for the public is key

The right to information was considered so

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

Right to be forgotten causes censorship and limits the

Right to be forgotten severely damages the economy places

the difficulties in enforcing the law go

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

Right to be forgotten will only be wielded by the rich and

Right to be forgotten only removes the search results, not the

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

RTBF Destroys Privacy and Free Speech

the right to be forgotten creates more

The right to be forgotten, however, is more likely to be employed as a

Right to be forgotten conflicts significantly with freedom of

Right to be forgotten violates free speech prevents you

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

Right to be forgotten is unconstitutional violates the first

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

RTBF Doesnt solve

complications arise due to the multiplying character of Internet data. Even if

request removal from such secondary sites as from the primary

source, and the caching or content providers have

it will be a greater challenge for users

controllers to remove the data,

Right to be forgotten requires not just codification as a civil

proponents of a right to be forgotten hardly substantiate how this vision

Right to be forgotten unnecessary

Forgotten: Forget About It, accessed July 17, 2014,

Just as we cant legislate the forgetfulness of our

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

The right to be forgotten, however, is

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

RTBF Doesnt Solve Technology limits

Identifying which party has responsibility and agency to

exercised, namely the data

difficulties arise in Web 2.0

interest in seeing removed.

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

RTBF Doesnt Solve Loopholes/Unnecessary

Right to be forgotten is unnecessary 85% of web content

West Coast Publishing Anonymous Free Speech Starter File

RTBF fails Huge backlog of requests

Google flooded with takedown requests

Right to be forgotten will flood companies like google with