A public hearing of the bcountry's Supreme Court will take place this Thursday and tomorrow in connection with the “right to be forgotten” case launched by Natalia Denegri against Google. Search engines must remove links to media from the past 1990s.
Due to the number of friends of the court (amicus curiae) who appeared on the file, the court ordered that the hearing should also take place on Friday.
Representatives of civil society organisations, constitutional lawyers and computer law experts will be present on the first day of the hearing. The speakers have previously submitted a summary of the presentation in digital format, and the presentation must not last longer than 8 minutes.On the second day, the State Attorney General Victor Abramovich and the parties to the dispute will participate.
This Thursday Maria Rosa Muiños, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires; Federation of Argentine Journalistic Organizations (ADEPA); Andres Gil Dominguez and Raúl Martínez Pazalari; Civil Rights Association (ADC); Horacio Roberto Granero; Centre for Legal and Social Studies (CELS); Ricardo Alberto Munoz (h); Civil Association for Constitutional Research (ACEC); Francisco Javier Seminara; Civic Association Ushina de Justicia; Buenos Aires Province Ombudsman Guido Lorenzino; LED Foundation Freedom of Speech and Democracy.
As Inforbae found, some of the claims made in the hearing relate to the fact that personal data is not the same as information, and in this sense, restricting the “right to be forgotten” is the right to information and the public interest in it. This improper exercise of the right to be forgotten can lead to an irreversible loss of information in the digital sector. When this becomes a common practice, we systematically lose the history of our society and democracy. According to one of the amicus who will be present this Thursday, it cannot be used as a tool to communicate “social oblivion.” The judge cannot be an authorized mediator or censor for making decisions about what to remember or be forgotten about.
Another basis that will be heard this morning is that the consequences of recognizing the right to be forgotten can be very serious in a democratic society that can be used to hide the information needed to make society's decisions. Due to this situation, there is a lack of protection for individuals to access information. According to the information Infobae had access to, he would mention the so-called “public forum doctrine,” written by the United States Supreme Court. This doctrine provides adequate and adequate protection against legal decisions required by Internet search engines. Certain links are blocked if you claim the right to be forgotten.
Likewise , the right to be forgotten by one of the amicus released this Thursday could turn an Internet content management company into a promoter of censorship that may be abused and limit the possibility of spreading the idea.
We will also find that the risks to freedom of expression are twofold: on the one hand, the ability of search engines to influence public debates by delivering biased results, and the ability for governments to impose regulations on intermediaries in the form of indirect censorship. Another risk is that imposing civil or criminal liability on search engines can serve as an incentive for private censorship.
The right to be forgotten by one of the experts participating in the hearing is not unlimited, its limit is in the public interest, and this solution cannot be entrusted only to the will of the subject concerned, as it indiscriminately affects his personal rights. It goes beyond freedom of information and freedom of expression.
Another amicus curiae argues that a stricter review of the constitutionality of the measures Denegri is seeking is needed because the information it is trying to suppress is true. He added that the privacy-protected space was limited in its willingness to expose itself to public and public conditions. He warns that the decision to remove or hinder information retrieval must be taken with caution and, in this case, is part of an event that moves society. It is impossible to measure the future significance of the excluded information.
One of the issuers may find that removing the index is less severe than deleting information, but it is an obstacle that hinders search or dissemination because it cannot be accessed if it is not a search engine. Not only does it prevent readers from accessing information, it also deprives journalists of powerful research tools. The right to be forgotten can affect freedom of expression, the exercise of press and information, open debate, and the effective validity of the democratic regime.
Lawyer Víctor Abramovich, according to Denegri, raised the question of whether blocking Internet links with content violates freedom of expression, which is harmful to his person. “If we turn controversial information into an undeniable public interest here, any link blocking or filtering measures imposed on Internet search tools actually impose extreme censorship measures with a strong presumption of unconstitutionality, which can only be used in absolute circumstances are exceptionally justified,” he said.
Read on: