| | |
|
EricNFirstEssay 7 - 22 Jan 2020 - Main.EricN
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | Privacy Legislation | |
<
< |
What does this question mean? It's utterly obscure to the reader who doesn't already know what you think. That discourages the reader from pressing on.
| | | Europe
The origins of the "Right to be Forgotten" (hereinafter "RTBF") are rooted in a landmark case in the data privacy landscape, namely Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González. | |
<
< |
You are not using markdown correctly to make links. You can see from the rendered page that you're not getting what you want. Look again at the reference documentation. I replaced the link above with the correct markdown, and you should fix the rest.
| | | Mr. González sued Google, alleging that the results of the search engine led to disadvantageous newspaper articles, which allegedly were no longer relevant and were damaging his reputation.
The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") ruled that the right to request the removal of inaccurate, excessive or irrelevant links arises from a fundamental right to privacy which is to be weighted higher than the economic interest of a commercial firm such as a newspaper or even, in some circumstances, the public interest in access to such information. | | | When a convicted murderer can have his name removed from online search results (German murderer wins 'right to be forgotten', BBC) and courts weigh his right to privacy higher than free speech and press freedom, then I would argue the RTBF poses a danger to free speech. Looking at the US, a recent case demonstrated why the RTBF does not (yet) work under current US Law. In Yury Mosha v. Yandex Inc., S.D.N.Y.,18 Civ. 5444 (ER) Mosha claimed that the Russian search engine Yandex.ru would defame him and after an unsuccessful trial in Russia, Mosha filed a claim in New York against the US subsidiary of Yandex, Inc. The District Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, based on the immunity of Yandex, Inc. under the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. § 230, holding that internet search providers are interactive computer services and as such, may rely on the immunity granted under the CDA. It will be interesting to see if this line of argumentation may be upheld in California in 2020. | |
<
< |
You haven't said anything that explains your initial question. You have described some legal material, but beyond summarizing the material, you have added no analysis of your own and have not presented an independent ideal, or framework in which to understand the material you describe. The primary route to improvement of the draft is to figure out what your idea is here. Put it at the top of the essay, clearly, in a sentence or two, so the reader knows what idea you want her to acquire. Then provide only the references and the details of the legal material necessary to show how you came by and support your idea. From a draft of that type we should be able to make further rapid progress, once we are clear what your particular idea is.
| | |
|
|
| Revision 7 | r7 - 22 Jan 2020 - 19:38:56 - EricN |
| Revision 6 | r6 - 07 Jan 2020 - 09:29:50 - EricN |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |