Case: The Right to be forgotten –NEG
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have… either one.”
­
Benjamin Franklin
Framework

Resolved: The “Right to be forgotten” from internet searches ought to be a civil right. I am

arguing the negative ballot.

Definitions:
“
The Right to be Forgotten
”
­ A right to have personal information deleted from

electronic or paper records or databases once the data is no longer necessary .
Civil Right
­
an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action Forget ­ to omit mentioning; disregard or slight
Privacy ­ the quality or state of being apart from company or observation, and freedom from unauthorized intrusion

Value: assurance of freedom of speech for all parties involved

Value criterion: By comprehending the human rights that we already possess, we will

recognize that not instituting the right to be forgotten does not mean restriction of free speech, that instilling this right would take away freedom of speech for all, and that censorship disturbs the balance of power.

Contention 1: Not implementing the Right to be forgotten as a civil right does not mean the inhibition of personal privacy
➢ Because privacy is such a vague concept, an argument based on the invasion of it cannot be supported
○ Once restrictions on people's speech are accepted in the name of "privacy," people will likely use them to argue for other restrictions on "privacy" grounds, even when the matter involves a very different sort of "privacy."
○ Privacy on a personal level and privacy on a social level are different. As the social networking world continues to expand, the definition of privacy as it relates to internet activities is determined solely by the user.
○ Details of each users backgrounds and experiences heavily influence their interpretation of this concept.
○ Thus, what one individual considers extremely private, another may conceive as a minute detail that is acceptable to share online.
➢ Members of social networks and online communities of that nature have already given users the ability to delete and/or report an offensive post
○ All social networks and membership based sites come equipped with account and post deletion options that grant users the ability to erase all traces of their account’s prior existence ○ These sites also come equipped with privacy options that allow users to set up extremely private accounts, so that personal information has no way of being released without permission.

○ Most sites, even those that are not account­based have the option to report a posting if it has caused an individual to feel offended, and will follow up promptly with deleting it, thus removing the post from search engines.
➢ The right to be forgotten also brings up the issue of relevancy of the information in question ○ The right to be forgotten is defined the right to be forgotten as “
A right to have personal information deleted from electronic or paper records or databases once the data is no longer necessary”.
○ The right to be forgotten was does not directly address the issue of privacy that the affirmative often argues because private information can still remain relevant to social media, or a court case, as well as in any other situation provided.
○ For example, The other side may argue that in cases of publicly posted nudity, protection of privacy and personal dignity begs for the institution of the right to be forgotten. While privacy is extremely important, the right to be forgotten, sadly, would not address this, especially when the post is still socially relevant. Contention 2: Instilling the right to be forgotten would lead to difficulties on an individual, national, and global level
➢ The right to be forgotten would violate freedom of speech and freedom of press
○ The main problem this would cause on a national