> You can appeal these fines in the court system if you want, and google always does this. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.
So? Lawyers aren't free. If you appeal and end up not paying the fine, you're still out lawyer/court fees. At the end the the safe decision is still to always comply.
>There's no chilling effect on free speech that I can see. All speech is subject to GDPR, so it only matters when the speech is collected and how it is processed, not what the speech actually is. This is different from DMCA where whether a request is rightful or wrongful is determined by the content that the user provided. In the case of GDPR whether the request is wrongful is determined by your own actions as a controller, not any action of the user. Therefore the chilling effect is only on collecting and processing speech, not on the expression of it.
I'll be more direct. Person A accuses person B of being an unsavory individual (eg. neo-nazi) and makes a blog post about it. A few years pass. Person B runs for MEP, thinks that the accusation would be bad for his campaign, and files a "right to be forgotten" request. Google gets the request, knows it's probably bogus, but doesn't want the hassle/fines/legal fees from fighting it, and so complies with the request. The blog might still be up, but it's impossible to discover. You don't see the issue here?
So? Lawyers aren't free. If you appeal and end up not paying the fine, you're still out lawyer/court fees. At the end the the safe decision is still to always comply.
>There's no chilling effect on free speech that I can see. All speech is subject to GDPR, so it only matters when the speech is collected and how it is processed, not what the speech actually is. This is different from DMCA where whether a request is rightful or wrongful is determined by the content that the user provided. In the case of GDPR whether the request is wrongful is determined by your own actions as a controller, not any action of the user. Therefore the chilling effect is only on collecting and processing speech, not on the expression of it.
I'll be more direct. Person A accuses person B of being an unsavory individual (eg. neo-nazi) and makes a blog post about it. A few years pass. Person B runs for MEP, thinks that the accusation would be bad for his campaign, and files a "right to be forgotten" request. Google gets the request, knows it's probably bogus, but doesn't want the hassle/fines/legal fees from fighting it, and so complies with the request. The blog might still be up, but it's impossible to discover. You don't see the issue here?