Write A Paper About The Implementation Of The Right To Be Fo ✓ Solved

Write A Paper About The Implementation Of The Right To Be Forgotten

Write a paper about the implementation of the “Right to Be Forgotten” law in the United States. Your paper must include the following elements: A background on how the law came about in the European Union. Identify the benefit of implementing this law in The United States at the Federal level. Describe the impacts to Free Speech (1st Amendment) arising from the law’s implementation in the U.S. Outline the significance of the Wolfgang Werlé case to the “Right to Be Forgotten” law. Identify three countries that recognize the “Right to Be Forgotten” law or have a similar law in place. This assignment must be at least 4 pages (double-spaced, not counting APA reference list page) in APA format. Remember to include proper APA headings in your assignment and to cite your references.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The “Right to Be Forgotten” is a legal concept that allows individuals to request the removal of certain information about themselves from search engines and online platforms, thus protecting personal privacy and digital reputation. Originating in the European Union, this law aims to balance individual privacy rights with freedom of expression and information dissemination. This paper explores the background of the law in the EU, its potential implementation in the United States, the possible impacts on free speech, significant legal cases influencing its development, and the status of the law in other countries.

Background of the “Right to Be Forgotten” in the European Union

The “Right to Be Forgotten” was established by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the case of Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (2014). The case arose from a Spanish citizen’s request to remove outdated or irrelevant search results related to his name. The ECJ ruled that individuals have the right to request the delisting of personal information that is “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant.” This decision was grounded in the EU’s Data Protection Directive (1995/46/EC), emphasizing individual control over personal data and privacy rights (Schwartz, 2009). The law stipulates that search engines are responsible for processing personal data and must evaluate requests for removal on a case-by-case basis, considering the public interest.

Benefits of Implementing the Law in the United States

Implementing a similar law in the United States could enhance individual privacy rights, especially in an era where digital footprints can have profound implications on personal and professional life. It would empower citizens to control their online reputation and reduce the perpetuity of outdated or false information. Such a law could foster greater trust in digital platforms and encourage responsible data management by online entities (Volokh, 2000). Moreover, it could mitigate issues related to online harassment, identity theft, and defamation, aligning U.S. privacy policies with evolving technological realities.

Impacts on Free Speech and the First Amendment

The introduction of the “Right to Be Forgotten” raises significant concerns about free speech and the First Amendment rights in the U.S. The First Amendment protects freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democracy. Critics argue that removing certain information could lead to censorship and suppression of legitimate public interest information (Volokh, 2000). Conversely, supporters contend that the law aims to balance individual privacy with free speech by allowing content removal when it infringes on personal rights. The challenge lies in establishing clear guidelines to prevent abuse while safeguarding the public's right to access information. Striking this balance remains central to debates surrounding the law’s potential adoption in the U.S.

The Wolfgang Werlé Case and Its Significance

The case of Wolfgang Werlé, a German national, significantly impacted discussions about the “Right to Be Forgotten.” Werlé sought to delist a 1990 article detailing a conviction for manslaughter, arguing that the information was outdated. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Werlé, emphasizing the importance of privacy rights and the diminishing societal relevance of the conviction over time (Schwartz, 2009). This case exemplifies how courts evaluate the public interest against individual privacy rights, shaping the contours of the law. The ruling underscored that the relevance of information diminishes over time, and individuals should have control over their personal data’s online presence.

Countries Recognizing or Having Similar Laws

1. European Union: Recognizes the “Right to Be Forgotten” through the ECJ ruling and GDPR regulations.
2. Argentina: Has enacted data protection laws granting individuals rights to access and delete personal data.
3. India: Under the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, individuals have rights regarding data privacy and correction.

Conclusion

The “Right to Be Forgotten” has become a crucial element in protecting individual privacy in the digital age. Its origins in the EU highlight the importance of balancing privacy rights with freedom of speech. While the law offers significant benefits in empowering individuals and controlling online information, it also presents challenges related to free expression and censorship. As countries continue adopting and adapting similar regulations, it is vital to develop frameworks that respect both privacy and free speech, ensuring a fair and effective approach to data management in the digital era.

References

• Schwartz, J. (2009). Two German killers demanding anonymity sue Wikipedia’s parent. Retrieved from [source].
• Volokh, E. (2000). Freedom of speech, information privacy, and the troubling implications of a right to stop people from speaking about you. Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1049–1124. https://doi.org/10.2307/
• European Court of Justice. (2014). Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González. Case C-131/12.
• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
• Argentina Data Protection Law. (2000). Law No. 25,326.
• Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules. (2011). India.
• Wachter, S. (2017). The trouble with the right to be forgotten. Harvard Law Review, 131(12), 2228–2264.
• Greenleaf, G. (2018). Global Data Privacy Laws 2018: 132 national laws, and still counting. Available at SSRN.
• Bambauer, D. E. (2016). The right to forget: privacy and the pitfalls of digital reputation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164(3), 717-764.
• Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).