Where you fall on that spectrum is largely a matter of geography. In Europe, specifically with EU countries, the Right to be Forgotten is now codified in the GDPR<\/a>. Across the Atlantic, in the US \u2013 where corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals (in addition to their rights as a corporation) \u2013 the very idea of a Right to be Forgotten is unpalatable to those with the power to make it law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But this isn\u2019t a screed about the ethics and wisdom behind\nsuch a right, no today we\u2019re going to discuss a fairly landmark ruling against\nGoogle, then we\u2019ll delve into some of the minutiae that surrounds this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s hash it out.<\/p><\/span>\n\n\n\n We\u2019ve written about the Right to be Forgotten at length<\/a>, but we\u2019ll give it a cursory recap just in case. The Right to be Forgotten gives individuals the ability to have negative content removed or de-listed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, there are a lot of restrictions on this. For instance, you\nhave to show that the content in question is injurious and either baseless or\nthat sufficient time has elapsed so as to render it less relevant. This is not\ncarte blanche to get any bit of negative publicity removed from the internet.\nIn fact, in Google\u2019s case the search giant isn\u2019t removing content at all, it\u2019s\nsimply de-listing results. We\u2019ll get to the ramifications of that in a minute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But it\u2019s important to remember that the Right to be\nForgotten is only supposed to apply when a party has been legitimately wronged.\nAs has been borne out in previous court decisions, the Right to be Forgotten\ndoesn\u2019t apply to things like negative reviews or criminal activity \u2013 things that\ncould be deemed useful to the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first Right to be Forgotten case happened about a decade ago and centered around a Spaniard that was attempting to have coverage of a decade\u2019s old financial problem removed. The man had been forced to sell off some property to satisfy a debt. Ample time had passed and the man had rebuilt his finances since then. The court ruled in his favor and Google was forced to de-list those results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our tale takes us to the land of Nether, where some years\nago a Dutch surgeon had a complaint filed about a lack of \u201corganization [sic]\nand aftercare\u201d in her clinic. The Regional Disciplinary Court for Healthcare,\nwhich administers the BIG register \u2013 a list of healthcare professionals that\nare authorized to practice medicine in the Netherlands \u2013 suspended the surgeon\nfrom said register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Upon appealing the decision, the Central Disciplinary Court\nfor Healthcare threw out the original ruling and replaced it with a conditional\nsuspension of her registration for a few months. That meant that the surgeon\nwas allowed to continue practicing medicine (I\u2019ve always found it a little\ndisconcerting that you \u201cpractice\u201d medicine). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, a quick Google search was all it took for\nnews of the surgeon\u2019s original penalty to surface as one of the top search\nresults.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat is the Right to be Forgotten?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What happened with this case?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Hashed](\"https:\/\/www.thesslstore.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/bigstock-222348568-1024x267.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"