>Yes,
and if English-Welsh law governed Wikipedia he could then sue for libel and have
all that reliably-sourced
>critical material removed regardless of it being
truthful, and then make sure that the fact that it was removed
>cannot be
reported in any news article that would show up in search results due to some
“’right’ to be forgotten”.
I'm still not sure what this has specifically to do with English-Welsh law, as opposed to the rest of the EU.
As for the Guardian piece, I agree with the Information Commissioner's Office,
https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2015/08/ico-orders-removal-of-google-search-results/ it's
> "an unwarranted and negative impact on the individual’s privacy"
If, after Google removes links to the claimant's name, someone searches for the phrase "right to be forgotten", then they will find the claimant's name(s), just not the other way around. Which is is as it should be.
Marie
From: dancase@frontiernet.net
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:48:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Amazon petition
>This
is the problem that I have with the whole notion of 'first amendment = trump
card'. If he were British and self-published from a >laptop within the UK
then he would be arrested for hate speech, and that would be the end of him and
his book(s).
Yes,
and if English-Welsh law governed Wikipedia he could then sue for libel and have
all that reliably-sourced critical material removed regardless of it being
truthful, and then make sure that the fact that it was removed cannot be
reported in any news article that would show up in search results due to some
“’right’ to be forgotten”.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap