> What about searching for "The Stanford Rapist"[2].[..] If one searches images for keywords [...]
Those would not be removed under the Right to be Forgotten as defined by the original verdict. The reasoning is that the individual is harmed most by people explicitly googling their name (i. e. recruiters, business partners, family etc). If you come to the article from the other side of the issue, it's far less likely that you're in a position of power vis-a-vis that person.
> What if the victim writes a popular blogpost,
Such an article would once again be subject to the Right to be Forgotten.
> What takes precedence? The victim's free speech or the felon's censorship powers granted by Right To Be Forgotten?
That's far too general a question to ask, and appears to be phrased with a certain outcome in mind.
Neither right is absolute. It all depends on the specific situation. It requires exactly the sort of balancing the judicial system is build for.
Those would not be removed under the Right to be Forgotten as defined by the original verdict. The reasoning is that the individual is harmed most by people explicitly googling their name (i. e. recruiters, business partners, family etc). If you come to the article from the other side of the issue, it's far less likely that you're in a position of power vis-a-vis that person.
> What if the victim writes a popular blogpost,
Such an article would once again be subject to the Right to be Forgotten.
> What takes precedence? The victim's free speech or the felon's censorship powers granted by Right To Be Forgotten?
That's far too general a question to ask, and appears to be phrased with a certain outcome in mind.
Neither right is absolute. It all depends on the specific situation. It requires exactly the sort of balancing the judicial system is build for.