As an aspect of European, and increasingly global, data protection law, "the right to be forgotten," or right to erasure, unsettles the tummies of American media advocates. The right to erasure runs up against the presumptive rule of U.S. First Amendment law that there can be no punishment for the republication of truthful information lawfully obtained. Read more about that here (predating implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation). The Italian Court of Cassation has issued a potentially important decision at the intersection of the right to erasure and the freedom of expression.
Hat tip @TheItalianLawJournal. For a few months to come, or until a better translation comes to light, I'm parking a very rough Google Translate rendition of the ruling here in PDF. The translations that follow here are mine, refining the Google Translate rendering. The original court decision can be found here.
|Antonello Venditti by Angela_Anji (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)|
Of peculiar resonance with current events in the United States, the Italian court took note of a German right-to-erasure case about "an affair in which a German citizen, who held a major political and business position in Germany, had requested the erasure of information from the web relating to an episode of collusion with Russian crime dating back several years earlier, republished several years after." The Court of Justice of the EU ruled that "the public's interest in information prevailed over the individual's interest in oblivion." However, the Italian court observed, the ruling resulted from a fact-intensive inquiry.
The court must engage with "the search for the right balance between the interest of Internet users in information and the fundamental rights of the person," the Italian court explained. "Therefore, the editor of a newspaper that stores in its historical archive on the internet the news, making it available to a potentially unlimited number of people, is required to prevent, through the dissemination of even remote facts, without any meaningful and current public interest, possible harm to the right to be forgotten by the people who were involved."
The freedom of expression must yield to the right to erasure, the court held, upon analysis according to five factors:
- the contribution made by the dissemination of the image or of the news to a matter of public interest;
- the actual and current interest in the dissemination of the image or news (for reasons of justice, police, or protection of the rights and liberties of others, or for scientific, educational, or cultural purposes), to be considered absent in case of prevalence of a popular interest [italics added; in original, divulgativo: I'm not sure how to translate that and don't think "popular" or "informed" is right], or, worse, merely economic or commercial interest of the subject that spreads the news or the image;
- the high degree of notoriety of the subject represented, for the economic or political reality of the country;
- the methods used, for the particular position held in public life, and, in particular, to obtain and give information, which must be truthful (because it is drawn from reliable sources, and with a diligent research work), disseminated in ways that are not excessive for information purposes, in the interest of the public, and free from insinuations or personal considerations, so as to highlight an exclusive objective interest in the new dissemination;
- the preventive information about the publication or transmission of the news or image at a distance of time, in order to allow the interested party the right of reply before its disclosure to the general public.
The court also rejected "satire" as a defense. The representation of Antonello was not "paradoxical, surreal and hyperbolic critique," but referred to "true fact," "clearly directed to a mere and unjustified denigration of the artist." The broadcaster sought to use the 2000 video to represent Antonello in 2005 as "a singer, for years, in decline."
This case is the very stuff of American media advocates' nightmares. Newspapers decry the right to erasure as a threat to online archives—though representations in archives, as archives, are readily factually distinguishable from the Antonello case. The more realistic threat would be to the "TMZ"/"Talk Soup" format of entertainment media, or even the clever uses of archival video that have become the staple of commentary on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah and Last Week with John Oliver. Certainly under a rule such as the Italian court employed, broadcasters, even straight news broadcasters, would have to take more care with their use of B roll.
I've advocated in favor of evolving U.S. privacy law toward European data protection norms. But the Italian court went too far here, lending credence to American nay-saying. I fault the court's analysis of Antonello as, in U.S. terms, a "private figure." The lower court got it right in finding Antonello's public status dispositive relative to this RAI commentary. It's especially telling and troubling that as to the satire argument—the RAI program seems on the mild side of the Talk Soup genre—the court faulted RAI commenters for the truth in their observation of Antonello's waning fame. The court set up the Italian judiciary to be a "super editor" of popular media, an arbiter of taste. American courts appropriately struggle with newsworthiness determinations in privacy law because they do not want that job.