This Thursday and tomorrow will be a public hearing convened by the Supreme Court in the context of the case initiated by Natalia Denegri against Google on the “right to be forgotten”. To remove links related to media from the 1990s past, you need a search engine.
Due to the number of friends of the court (amicus curiae) that appeared in the file, the court ordered that the hearing should also be held on Friday.
The first day of the hearing will be attended by representatives of civil society organizations, constitutional lawyers and computer law experts. The speaker has previously submitted a summary of the presentation in digital format, and the presentation may not last more than 8 minutes. On the second day, the Attorney General of the State, Victor Abramovich, and the parties to the dispute are present.
This Thursday, Maria Rosa Muinos, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires; Association of Journalistic Organizations of Argentina (ADEPA); Andres Gil Dominguez and Raúl Martínez Fajalari; Civil Rights Association (ADC); Horacio Roberto Granero; Center for Legal Society (CELS); Ricardo Alberto Munoz (h); Association for the Study of Civil Constitution (ACEC); Francisco Javier Semière Country; Civic Association Ushina de Justicia; Ombudsman of the Province of Buenos Aires, Guido Lorenzino; LED Foundation Freedom of Expression+Democracy.
As Inforbae found out, some of the claims that will be expressed at the hearing relate to the fact that personal data is not the same as information, and in that sense, the restriction on the “right to be forgotten” is the right to information and the public interest. This abusive exercise of the right to be forgotten can lead to irreversible loss of information in the digital sphere. That is, if it becomes widespread, it systematically loses the history of society and democracy. According to the opinion of one of Amicus, which will be announced this Thursday, the judge cannot use it as a tool to communicate “social oblivion”, and the judge cannot be an authorized mediator or censor for decisions about what needs to be remembered or forgotten.
Another basis that will be heard this morning is that the consequences of acknowledging the right to be forgotten can be very serious in a democratic society that can be used to hide the information necessary for social decisions. Due to these circumstances, it fails to protect individuals from accessing information. According to the information accessed by Infobae, he would refer to the so-called “public forum doctrine” written by the Supreme Court of the United States, which provides adequate and reasonable protection against judicial decisions required by Internet search engines. Certain links will be blocked if they claim the right to be forgotten.
Likewise, the right to be forgotten by one of the amicus that will be made public this Thursday could make Internet content management companies a promoter of censorship, potentially limiting the possibility of being abused and spreading ideas.
In addition, the risks to freedom of expression are twofold: the ability of search engines to influence public debates by providing biased results and the possibility that governments impose regulations on intermediaries in the form of indirect censorship. Another risk is that imposing civil or criminal liability on search engines can be an incentive for private censorship.
The right to be forgotten by one of the professionals who will participate in the hearing is not unlimited, and its limit is in the public interest, and this solution cannot be delegated only to the will of the relevant subject, since it indiscriminately prioritizes the rights of individuals beyond freedom of information and freedom of expression.
Another amicus curiae argues that a more rigorous review of the constitutionality of the measures requested by Denegri is necessary. This is because the information he is trying to suppress is true.He added that the space protected for privacy has limited willingness to expose himself publicly and to public conditions. He warned that the decision to eliminate or hinder the search for information must be taken with caution, and in this case it is part of an event that moves society. It is impossible to measure the future importance of the information being excluded.
One of the exhibitors may find that the removal of the index is less serious than the deletion of information, but it is a barrier that hinders the search or dissemination, since it cannot be accessed if it is not a search engine. In addition to preventing readers from accessing information, it deprives journalists of powerful research tools. The right to be forgotten can affect freedom of expression, the exercise of media and information, open debate and the effective validity of the democratic system.
According to Denegri, lawyer Víctor Abramovich raised the question of whether blocking Internet links with content violates freedom of expression. “If we make controversial information undeniable public interest here, all measures to block or filter links imposed on Internet search tools actually impose extreme censorship measures with strong presumption of unconstitutionality,” he said.
Keep reading: