Aff/ Right to be forgotten I affirm the resolution the “right to be forgotten” from internet searches ought to be a civil right. I provide the following definitions: The right to be forgotten: the right to apply to have links removed from the internet for legitimate purposes Ought
: moral obligation
Civil right: a right afforded to a person by their government I offer the value of morality, as it is inherent in the resolution. As the utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill had said,
“The ultimate end, from which all other things are desirable is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain.” Ultimately, the universal human motive that which motivates all other actions is the achievement of happiness and selffulfillment and the avoidance of pain and misery. Mill recognizes that morality is linked into happiness. Thus, I offer the value criterion of preserving civil rights.
The affirmative side ensures that the right to privacy, and property are protected with the Right to Be Forgotten. My first contention is that the Right to Be Forgotten preserves transparency and accuracy of information. In modern societies, it is essential that people are aware of important uptodate information about politicians, businesses, and other entities that directly affect their lives.
According to Principle 2 of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, “every person has the inalienable right to know the truth about past events, and are obligated to remove false information that does not fully portray the entire truth.”
With the RTBF, we can ensure that unnecessary and inaccurate information is removed.
For example, the government of Germany has established a nonprofit nongovernment organization to regulate requests for the removal of online fabrications.
Thus, anyone who has posted information online and now realizes that is irrelevant, not factual, or harmful in society can request its removal. Through the removal of this kind of inaccurate information, it will become easier to identify relevant information. With the transparency that the
RTBF provides, the public will not have to sort through as much false information people will easily have access to the truthful content.
My second contention is that the right to be forgotten can make it harder for outdated information can not impact one’s future in a negative way.
On March 5, 2010, Mario González lodged a complaint with the Spanish Data Protection
Agency against a newspaper called La Vanguardia. The newspaper published an article regarding his debts, but the information was outdated. Now, when banks researched Gonzaléz’s history, they believed he neglected his responsibility to pay back the loan, and his credit score suffered immensely. On May 13, the Court of Justice, the highest legal authority in the European
Union affirmed that a person should be able to demand that a search engine remove links “on the ground that that information may be prejudicial to him and unfairly impact his future.” In doing so, the court endorsed a relatively new addition to the catalog of human rights: the right to be forgotten.
Every year there is a percentage of job applicants that are denied jobs due to the
information posted online. According to a recent study 1 in ten job applicants have lost their job opportunities due to what has been posted on facebook (aol…) according to a recent survey conducted by the department of economics in Carnegie Mellon University, 1 in 10 young people aged 16 to 34 have been rejected from desired jobs because of their social media.
It has even been shown that the younger people of the population are more likely to design their personal social media for their friends rather than for possible employers. Based on these studies it is extremely likely for numerous applicants to be denied jobs. Why are we putting the workforce at