What are the specific parts of their reasoning about the consequences that you find fault with?
I'm actually quite impressed that they're not falling for the non-existent technological obstacles that have been put in place here to side-step the law, for a change the EU court actually seems to be on the ball.
Because "The right to be forgotten" is just doublespeak for censorship. Politicians are using it to hide an unsavory past. Businesses will use it to cover up past wrongdoings. I'm not just exaggerating, this is already happening now with the current implementation.
Of course it isn't. That right applies to any citizen, not just to politicians, and besides, the newspaper morgues are not so forgetful. Also, for 'public figures' the standards are different and they probably will be only very partially successful in this. The Streisand effect will nicely counteract any attempt to be 'forgotten' for those who are extra deserving of being remembered.
>and besides, the newspaper morgues are not so forgetful
So how can such a double standard possibly be justified? How can google be forced to delete things from the servers, but newspaper archives can't be forced to burn their material?
Newspaper archives do not vacuum up random facts about random citizens, they don't build mile-long profiles, they store articles about events that were considered news-worthy by some newsdesk. Automated collation of data and journalism are not even remotely similar processes.
What I find interesting is how everybody is focusing on Google here, when the real focus should be not on how this system could be abused but why it exists and who it could benefit. And that gives a completely different picture. But it's late here (3 am) and I'm off to bed.
Streisand effect can only exist when the speech is free. When EU can ban any mention of a politician being embroiled in a juicy scandal 10 years ago, how would you disseminate this information? Only at great risk to yourself. This is not what should be happening in a free country, but apparently EU doesn't really need all the troubles of being free countries, their politicians are completely fine to deny their citizens the right of free speech. It's safer for them this way.
The EU can not ban any such mention, you are completely misrepresenting the intent and the actual use of these laws.
Free speech American Style is American, the EU is different, whether better or worse is not for me to decide but it is the law of the land and as such it should be respected by corporations operating there.
The EU is concerned with privacy here, you are concerned with censorship, those are not the same concepts and they are not addressed by the same mechanisms.
The fact that in some EU countries (ex) politicians hold large stakes in media conglomerates and can manipulate public opinion is a much bigger source for worry than that some politician embroiled in a juicy scandal would be able to wipe his trail completely. Especially newspapers will take a serious stance against that and it will simply not work.