It is always said that nothing on the internet can truly “disappear.” Supposedly, if a mistake is made on the internet, it will never go away. However, in 2010, a Spanish citizen sent a complaint to a newspaper and Google about an auction notice of his repossessed home.  This concern had been fully resolved for a number of years. Thus, the reference to these were entirely irrelevant.

He requested that the newspaper fix the stories accusing him and asked Google to remove these past irrelevancies from his name. This led to a trial (Costeja Judgment) about the application of a previous law and if it worked on search engines. This created this idea about removing information. This invented the term “right to be forgotten”.

Six years after the trial, Google has announced that they will uphold the European Union (EU) ruling of the “right to be forgotten”. This idea allows EU residents to request the removal of search results that they feel is linked to outdated or irrelevant information. However, it is on a country-by-country basis that this can remove anything online that endangers credibility can be removed.

This means the U.S is not included in “the right to be forgotten” that Google decide to uphold. The United States does not usually look at the EU for good ideas, nevertheless, “right to be forgotten” should be implemented in United States affairs.

The problem: the nifty thing in the United States called the First Amendment which upholds the freedom of press and freedom of speech. These two are currently roadblocks in order for the right to be forgotten to be implicated. This is due to the initial freedom of these websites and newspapers regarding the publication of information.

Further described by the The New Yorker that quotes, “guarantees that the Costeja judgment (the case allowing the right to be forgotten) would never pass muster under U.S. law. The Costeja records were public, and they were reported correctly by the newspaper at the time; constitutionally, the press has a Near absolute right to publish accurate, lawful information.” So currently, Google couldn’t remove the information because the websites has the right to still be able to have the information that is both public and also properly reported at the time.

Should part of our First Amendment be sacrificed for these specific instances to overall benefit the people with the issues on the web? Simply yes because search engines provide a valuable service to Internet users. On that point there is no dispute. But that doesn’t mean they are above the law or ethical responsibilities. Just because private information can be found on the Internet does not mean it should be made widely available. This would allow people to remove the private information that has been show to only cause harms to them, like what happened in the Costeja case. It is the ethical decision for the right of privacy if it puts the people at risk. The right to be forgotten is the solution, so why not implicate it.