The so-called "right to be forgotten" is a dangerous conflation of individual privacy with the suppression of truth. At its core, it attempts to grant individuals a power that does not and cannot exist: the ability to erase reality. Facts, once true, remain true. To legislate otherwise is to enshrine the falsehood that one's past can be rewritten to suit one's present desires. Such a concept is not the defence of rights but their betrayal.
The essence of individual liberty is the right to act and to be judged by the consequences of those actions. This does not entitle anyone to demand that others forget what they have seen, heard, or experienced. The "right to be forgotten" imposes a moral and legal inversion: it forces others to alter their memory, their records, and their history to accommodate a revisionist view of the past. This is not justice; it is coercion, and it undermines the integrity of any legal system that claims to respect individual rights.
The proper approach to privacy is to ensure that individuals are secure from unjust intrusions by others, particularly from the state. This includes protections against unwarranted surveillance, data breaches, and the misuse of information acquired without consent. But the right to privacy does not extend to censoring the truth or compelling others to alter the factual record. The moment an individual voluntarily engages with society—whether through commerce, public speech, or any other form of interaction—they place a part of themselves in the public sphere. To attempt to claw back this information by law is an affront to freedom, both of the individual seeking to erase their past and of those tasked with preserving it.
The content of any privacy-related right should be strictly limited to what can be reasonably protected without infringing on the rights of others. For instance, there is a valid claim to require consent for the use of personal data collected in private contexts. Yet even here, the law must avoid paternalism: individuals must take responsibility for their choices, including the contracts they enter into and the information they share.
The responsibility for implementing such laws lies with a judicial system committed to protecting rights, not creating them. A court should uphold privacy only when it does not conflict with the truth or the freedom of others. Any attempt to legislate a blanket "right to be forgotten" must fail on these grounds: it violates the principle of objective law by replacing justice with whim.
Ultimately, the right to privacy, properly understood, is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from harm; it does not empower them to rewrite the past. A society that values freedom cannot afford to elevate the subjective desire to "forget" above the objective necessity of truth. To do so is to sacrifice the rational foundation of rights on the altar of evasion..
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Nov 24, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1860590344116801704
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/2143
The essence of individual liberty is the right to act and to be judged by the consequences of those actions. This does not entitle anyone to demand that others forget what they have seen, heard, or experienced. The "right to be forgotten" imposes a moral and legal inversion: it forces others to alter their memory, their records, and their history to accommodate a revisionist view of the past. This is not justice; it is coercion, and it undermines the integrity of any legal system that claims to respect individual rights.
The proper approach to privacy is to ensure that individuals are secure from unjust intrusions by others, particularly from the state. This includes protections against unwarranted surveillance, data breaches, and the misuse of information acquired without consent. But the right to privacy does not extend to censoring the truth or compelling others to alter the factual record. The moment an individual voluntarily engages with society—whether through commerce, public speech, or any other form of interaction—they place a part of themselves in the public sphere. To attempt to claw back this information by law is an affront to freedom, both of the individual seeking to erase their past and of those tasked with preserving it.
The content of any privacy-related right should be strictly limited to what can be reasonably protected without infringing on the rights of others. For instance, there is a valid claim to require consent for the use of personal data collected in private contexts. Yet even here, the law must avoid paternalism: individuals must take responsibility for their choices, including the contracts they enter into and the information they share.
The responsibility for implementing such laws lies with a judicial system committed to protecting rights, not creating them. A court should uphold privacy only when it does not conflict with the truth or the freedom of others. Any attempt to legislate a blanket "right to be forgotten" must fail on these grounds: it violates the principle of objective law by replacing justice with whim.
Ultimately, the right to privacy, properly understood, is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from harm; it does not empower them to rewrite the past. A society that values freedom cannot afford to elevate the subjective desire to "forget" above the objective necessity of truth. To do so is to sacrifice the rational foundation of rights on the altar of evasion..
1/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Nov 24, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1860590344116801704
https://t.me/S_Tominaga/2143
Comments
Be the first to add a comment
Log in to comment