The Fourth Year of Forgetting: The Troubling Expansion of the Right to Be Forgotten

In its famous right to be forgotten decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in 2014 that search engine operators must, upon request from a data subject, remove links that result from searches for an individual’s name when those results are “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes… carried out by the operator of the search engine.” The initial implementation of the right to be forgotten was limited in several ways. First, it was limited in geographical scope to European domains of search engines. Google—the primary search engine affected by the decision—limited delisting to its European domains (such as Google.es and Google.de) and refrained from implementing such delisting within its global Google.com search engine. While Google has consistently sought to limit the geographical reach of the right to be forgotten decision, European data regulators have insisted upon its global implementation. Second, the implementation of the right to be forgotten was limited to search engines and only imposed delisting requirements on the search engines; it did not extend to the underlying content at issue, such as newspaper archives or other online content. As such, the right to be forgotten decision mandated only indirect—not direct—censorship of the content to be forgotten. Recently, however, European courts have expanded the scope of the right to be forgotten (and related privacy rights) to mandate how newspapers and other Internet content providers make available content on the Internet, in some instances requiring erasure or anonymization of such content. These expansions of the right to be forgotten have posed greater impositions on freedom of expression, including on the rights of United States citizens and members of the press to access information on the Internet regarding U.S. court decisions. In addition, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation—which went into effect in May 2018—imposes even greater infringements on the right to freedom of expression and does not accord the fundamental due process rights of notice or the opportunity to be heard to affected speakers and publishers. Furthermore, the right to be forgotten is expanding beyond Europe -- to countries such as India, Russia, Mexico, Japan, and Colombia -- and these countries are imposing expansive obligations on search engines and Internet content providers to censor information on the Internet. While the right to be forgotten began as a right that was limited in scope—and had a limited effect on the free flow of information on the Internet—in the past four years it has rapidly expanded into a formidable global threat to freedom of expression. While the right to be forgotten began as a right that was limited in scope—and had a limited effect on the free flow of information on the Internet—in the past four years it has rapidly expanded into a formidable global threat to freedom of expression

The Digital Services Act and the Brussels Effect on Platform Content Moderation

The EU’s latest regulation of social media platforms—the Digital Services Act (DSA)—will create tension and conflict with the U.S. speech regime applicable to social media platforms. The DSA, like prior EU regulations of social media platforms, will further instantiate the Brussels Effect, whereby EU regulators wield powerful influence on how social media platforms moderate content on the global scale. This is because the DSA’s regulatory regime (with its huge penalties for noncompliance) will incentivize the platforms to skew their global content moderation policies toward the EU’s instead of the U.S.’s balance of speech harms versus benefits. The Act’s incentives for platforms to moderate harmful content, if implemented globally as is likely, will also create tension with recently enacted U.S. state laws like those adopted in Texas and Florida, and those proposed at the federal level, which prohibit platforms from moderating content in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner

The Digital Services Act and the Brussels Effect on Platform Content Moderation

The EU’s latest regulation of social media platforms—the Digital Services Act (DSA)—will create tension and conflict with the U.S. speech regime applicable to social media platforms. The DSA, like prior EU regulations of social media platforms, will further instantiate the Brussels Effect, whereby EU regulators wield powerful influence on how social media platforms moderate content on the global scale. This is because the DSA’s regulatory regime (with its huge penalties for noncompliance) will incentivize the platforms to skew their global content moderation policies toward the EU’s instead of the U.S.’s balance of speech harms versus benefits. The Act’s incentives for platforms to moderate harmful content, if implemented globally as is likely, will also create tension with recently enacted U.S. state laws like those adopted in Texas and Florida, and those proposed at the federal level, which prohibit platforms from moderating content in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner

O preço da priorização paga: As consequências internacionais e domésticas da falha ao proteger a neutralidade da rede nos Estados Unidos

In this Article, we first examine the trade and human rights obligations of the United States as they relate to net neutrality to determine the extent to which each of the two most recent approaches adopted by the FCC to promote an open Internet would comply with those obligations. We also examine the history of regulation of broadband providers as common carriers subject to nondiscrimination obligations under U.S. law. We conclude that the FCC has, by and large, successfully complied with its international trade and human rights obligations in its new Open Internet Order.En este artículo, examinamos primeramente las obligaciones del derecho internacional del comercio y de los derechos humanos de Estados Unidos en relación con la neutralidad en la red, para determinar hasta qué punto las dos últimas aproximaciones adoptadas por la FCC para promover una Internet libre y abierta cumplen con dichas obligaciones. También examinamos la historia de la regulación de los proveedores de banda ancha como common carriers sujetos a obligaciones de no-discriminación bajo la ley estadounidense. Concluimos que la nueva "Open Internet Order" de la FCC cumple, en términos generales, de forma exitosa las obligaciones internacionales de comercio y derechos humanos contraídas por Estados Unidos.Neste artigo, examinamos em primer lugar as obrigações do direito internacional do comércio e dos direitos humanos dos Estados Unidos em relação à neutralidade da rede, para determinar até que ponto as duas últimas aproximações adoptadas pela FCC para promover uma internet livre e aberta cumpren com essas obrigações. Também examinamos a história da regulamentação dos fornecedores de banda larga como common carriers submetidos a obrigações de não discriminação sob a lei estado-unidense. Concluímos que a nova Open Internet Order da FCC cumpre com sucesso, em termos gerais, com as obrigações internacionais de comércio e de direitos humanos contraídas pelos Estados Unidos

O preço da priorização paga: As consequências internacionais e domésticas da falha ao proteger a neutralidade da rede nos Estados Unidos

In this Article, we first examine the trade and human rights obligations of the United States as they relate to net neutrality to determine the extent to which each of the two most recent approaches adopted by the FCC to promote an open Internet would comply with those obligations. We also examine the history of regulation of broadband providers as common carriers subject to nondiscrimination obligations under U.S. law. We conclude that the FCC has, by and large, successfully complied with its international trade and human rights obligations in its new Open Internet Order.En este artículo, examinamos primeramente las obligaciones del derecho internacional del comercio y de los derechos humanos de Estados Unidos en relación con la neutralidad en la red, para determinar hasta qué punto las dos últimas aproximaciones adoptadas por la FCC para promover una Internet libre y abierta cumplen con dichas obligaciones. También examinamos la historia de la regulación de los proveedores de banda ancha como common carriers sujetos a obligaciones de no-discriminación bajo la ley estadounidense. Concluimos que la nueva "Open Internet Order" de la FCC cumple, en términos generales, de forma exitosa las obligaciones internacionales de comercio y derechos humanos contraídas por Estados Unidos.Neste artigo, examinamos em primer lugar as obrigações do direito internacional do comércio e dos direitos humanos dos Estados Unidos em relação à neutralidade da rede, para determinar até que ponto as duas últimas aproximações adoptadas pela FCC para promover uma internet livre e aberta cumpren com essas obrigações. Também examinamos a história da regulamentação dos fornecedores de banda larga como common carriers submetidos a obrigações de não discriminação sob a lei estado-unidense. Concluímos que a nova Open Internet Order da FCC cumpre com sucesso, em termos gerais, com as obrigações internacionais de comércio e de direitos humanos contraídas pelos Estados Unidos