[[Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;]]
That one is out the window now- thanks to courts forcing Christians to bake cakes for gay couples
[[or abridging the freedom of speech,]]
This the next target of the left-
EXCERPT:
So, under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was no longer material to current public debate or discourse (except when it was related to convicted felonies or legal matters relating to violence in which the subject played a central and substantial role). And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was no longer material to current public debate. Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others.
But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldnt be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).
Remember: There is no right to be forgotten in the abstract; no law can ensure that, and no law can be limited to that. Instead, the right this aims to protect is the power to suppress speech the power to force people (on pain of financial ruin) to stop talking about other people, when some government body decides that they should stop.
I will not comply.