Right to be forgotten invoked to kill review

[fjtorres]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...gotten-ruling/

The pianist Dejan Lazic, like many artists and performers, is occasionally the subject of bad reviews. Also like other artists, he reads those reviews. And disagrees with them. And gripes over them, sometimes.

But because Lazic lives in Europe, where in May the European Union ruled that individuals have a “right to be forgotten” online, he decided to take the griping one step further: On Oct. 30, he sent The Washington Post a request to remove a 2010 review by Post classical music critic Anne Midgette that – he claims — has marred the first page of his Google results for years.

Now, at least in Europe, there’s a sense that personally involved individuals are somehow furthest from bias, somehow closest the truth.

“I so often listen to a concert, and then the next day read about it in the newspapers — read something that is simply too far from the truth,” Lazic complained. “This is something I, as an artist, am seeking and looking for my whole life: the truth.”

Never mind that such an attitude torpedoes the very foundation of arts criticism, a pursuit that even Lazic says makes us “better off as a society.” Never mind that it essentially invalidates the primary function of journalism, which is to sift through competing, individual storylines for the one that most closely mirrors a collective reality. Or that it undermines the greatest power of the Web, as a record and a clearinghouse for our vast intellectual output.

“I can’t imagine that journalism would have to abide by such strictures,” Midgette said. “Once something is in a paper, it’s a matter of public record, and then it’s on the record for better or worse; isn’t that so?”

It’s so in the United States, at least. But Europe seems to have different priorities for truth.

Details at the source.

There's an old saying that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. That may no longer be true everywhere.

This was, of course, inevitable.
I suppose authors will be lining up next to get bad reviews expunged.

[tubemonkey]

That law allows selective "forgetting"?

I don't like this law; it's censorship. If it must be, then it should be an all or nothing thing. If you wish to be forgotten, than all traces of you should be removed.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

If you wish to be forgotten, than all traces of you should be removed.

Forgetting isn't exactly what these folks want.

You hear about this particular piece of work?

http://ruthlessculture.com/2014/10/2...ack-reviewers/

She too wanted to control what reviewers say. In the worst way.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

This was, of course, inevitable.
I suppose authors will be lining up next to get bad reviews expunged.

They should (and won't) first note that the request was not honored, and that, in fact, the requester has now become the story. Much, much more so than before.

The Streisand Effect isn't by any means new, and it's such a fundamental law of the internet that there is zero chance of changing it through legislation. There are already multiple web sites documenting stuff removed from search engines with these requests.

[leaston]

It should be a blanket removal of all reviews then, not just the bad or ones the particular individual takes umbrage with.

As taustin said, with the Streisand Effect in full swing, the chances of this type of request being fulfilled are virtually nil. Quite right too.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by taustin

They should (and won't) first note that the request was not honored, and that, in fact, the requester has now become the story.

Dejan Lazic's big mistake was sending the request to the newspaper instead of Google. Now there are so many and recent related news stories that it is too late for Lazic to get Google's help. But if he had gone to Google first and only, what then would have happened?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by taustin

They should (and won't) first note that the request was not honored, and that, in fact, the requester has now become the story.

Doesn't mean he won't sue.
Cross-border lawsuits are not unheard of.

Besides, the point he was making wasn't that he wanted the review hard to find, he wanted it deleted. Unavailable anywhere. Expunged. That's why he went to the source.

Is he wacko? Of course.
But a wacko with government backing.
Look to the Hale case: she tracked down and stalked an online reviewer who made what turned out to he valid points and expressed an honest opinion. Then she went to the (foreign) media to brag about it and paint her target as vile and biased.
Plenty more where those came from, too.

The WP is big enough to be able to afford to stand on principle but what of smaller blogs?

We already have Elora's Cave suing DEAR AUTHOR for repeating publicly available information, and that is under traditional law. Add in wacko laws and it'll be open season on reviewer and bloggers...

Most rights come with responsibilities and limits: free speech being bound by libel laws to constrain its protections to truthful facts and honest expression. Under "right to be forgotten" not even truth or facts are protected.

[ApK]

We REALLY need to work on interstellar travel.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That law allows selective "forgetting"?

I don't like this law; it's censorship. If it must be, then it should be an all or nothing thing. If you wish to be forgotten, than all traces of you should be removed.

This law is not about removing any traces (= the original websites) but about removing google links to the original websites.

The case that lead to this law was a man who went bancrupt 15 years ago and still today, 15 years later, the first google link was to a report about his bancruptcy.

[Ghitulescu]

I am not sure google existed 15 years ago, back then it was altavista, yahoo and others, now forgotten (they deserved this right, to make a joke).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Billi

This law is not about removing any traces (= the original websites) but about removing google links to the original websites.

In the particular case reported by the OP, though, the complainant did in fact request the hosting website (the Washington Post newspaper) to delete the article.

[Billi]

He can request what he wants - this has nevertheless nothing to do with what the EU law is about. And the EU law refers explicitly to links to websites that contain "sensible personal data" - I don't think that a review falls under this category.

[HarryT]

The BBC News website has removed a number of old news items under this law, too.

[DiapDealer]

Weird.
I agree with the sentiments RE interstellar travel. Earth really should have had its Ozzie and Nigel moment by now.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Billi

The case that lead to this law was a man who went bancrupt 15 years ago and still today, 15 years later, the first google link was to a report about his bancruptcy.

If finding that search hit somehow did actual harm that SHOULD NOT have happened, like being denied credit or a job when a 15 year old bankruptcy should NOT have been considered, then a more reasonable law to address that should been concerning the acts of the party who did the harm, e.g., make them show why they did what they did, where they got their info, etc.

Do the rest of you find this law as disturbing as I do?
Any one think this was a good idea? I'd love to hear the reasons.