the "right to be forgotten" on Internet searchers ought to be a

Quote from my opponent "Of course not all forms are crude." He is agreeing to my argument to some extent, but he also made the statement of saying "The simple matter is that this is a breach of privacy and should be illegal." Which made him contradict his earlier statement. Also, if the "right to be forgotten" contradicts with other rights (freedom of speech). Then it can't be a civil right. On an article on Stanford Law Review dated on February 13, 2012 a Professor of Law at the George Washington University a man named Jeffrey Rosen said "In America,[In contrast to European Law and Practice], publication of someone's criminal history is protected by the First Amendment, leading Wikipedia to resist the efforts by two Germans convicted of murdering a famous actor to remove their criminal history from the actor's Wikipedia page." In America this law implies to criminals. Therefore, this argument is still valid. The frontiers of ours is our property. This man's family was devastated by the incident and the photos that lie with it. Now, we necessarily don't need to view these photos of the daughter. The important issue is that we also have a freedom of knowledge that needs to be issued in the "right to be forgotten". "Factsheet of the 'Right to be Forgotten' Ruling" June 3, 2014 on European Commission "The proposed European regulation, however, treats take down requests for truthful information posted by others identically to take down requests for photos I've posted myself that have then been copied by others: both are included in the definition of personal data as "any information relating" to me, regardless of its sources. I can demand take down and the burden, once again, is on the third party to prove that it falls within the exception for journalistic, artistic, or literary exception, This could transform Google, for example, into a censor-in-chief for the European Union, rather than a neutral platform. And because this is a role Google won't want to play, it may instead produce blank pages whenever a European user types in the name of someone who has objected to a nasty blog post or status update." the "right to be forgotten should not be a civil right because search engines will become censors rather than true search engines. Search engines are already having a hard time satisfying everyones requests to take down information. On a site called Mashable article named "Google Reveals Information About 'Right to be Forgotten' Requests" it informs us about there being 170,706 URLs (41.8 percent) of requests being taken down, while keeping another 237,736 links (58.2%). This is only on Google. France leads all European countries with 28,912 requests for 89,168 URLs. Germany follows closely with 24,979 requests for 88,883 links. The UK, Spain and Italy close the top five. Most affected by these requests is Facebook, with 3,332 links removed, according to the transparency report. The second site is profileengine.com, a site that claims to be the world's first "social network search engine," with 3,289 links removed. YouTube follows closely with 2,392. In addition, the "right to be forgotten" places an unjust burden on the search engines;the search engines will begin eliminating all material (fearful of lawsuits). The truth will never be found. Stanford Law Review. Jefferey Rosen, Professor of Law at the George Washington University; Legal Affairs Editor, The New Republic. February 13, 2013. "The right to be forgotten could make Facebook and Google, for example, liable for up to two percent of their global income if they fail to remove photos that people post about themselves and later regret, even if the photos have been widely distributed already." He also said "Unless the right is defined more precisely when it is promulgated over the next year or so, it could precipitate dramatic clash between privacy and free speech, leading to a far less open Internet." In conclusion my reasons to negate the "right to be forgotten" on Internet searches ought to be a civil right are; 1. Infringes on the public right to know. 2. Infringes on property's rights;shared ownership. 3. Limits freedom of speech/ freedom of expression;you should be allowed to say anything that's truthful. 4. Allow possible criminal evidence to be removed. 5. Without all information the truth will never emerge. 6. Search engines will become censors rather than true search engines. 7. Individuals should be accountable/responsible for their actions. 8. Violates equality;the process of removal will not be accessible for least advantaged. 9. No governmental obligation to extend privacy rights. 10. Places an unjust burden on the search engines;the search engines will begin eliminating all material (fearful of lawsuits). The truth will never be found. 11. Conflicts with other rights (freedom of speech). Can't be a civil right. 12. Diligent investigative reporting will allow information to surface, even if it's been removed from a search engine. 13. Search engines are having a hard time satisfying everyones requests to take down information. Thank you, guillermo.99, for joining this debate. ^-^