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 shouldn’t 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.
Even aside from its offensiveness to the First Amendment, enforcing this law would be a massive enterprise, literally impossible. A single site like Breitbart receives more than 10,000 comments every day. Who is going to review even that one site and determine which comments (or entire stories) are inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive?
[[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 shouldn’t be discussing.]]
Exactly and the very reason it is unconstitutional and the reason why free speech is protected (Except in very specific cases) is that the potential for abuse and non stop litigation as groups become professional complainers and both sides of the isle go tit for tat ‘reporting “Offensive” speech’ that they don’t like
[[ the power to force people (on pain of financial ruin)]]
Exactly what has happened in the case of Christian bakers, florists, photographers who refused to cater to gay marriages on religious grounds-