[thfuran]

If it's already illegal, then I don't see how a right to be forgotten changes anything in that case.

[hdfbdtbcdg]

It means the search engines can't stick their fingers in their ears and ignore real people's legitimate needs to put their past mistakes behind them.

[cortesoft]

What about people's legitimate need to share the wrongs that people have done to them? Or people's legitimate need to know someone's history?

Imagine you meet someone on a dating site, and they assault you on your date. They serve their time, and now have a 'right to be forgotten'.

Do future potential dates not get to know that their date that night has been convicted of assault against someone else, also on a first date? Am I not allowed to warn those people?

[hdfbdtbcdg]

Once the crime is spent no.

[thfuran]

That makes no sense. If it was already illegal to publish that information then they already weren't allowed to do that. Maybe this law has harsher penalties but, generally speaking, making something double-illegal isn't meaningful.