I apologise, "public scandals" was poor phrasing. My point was that the right to be forgotten aims to limit/remove access to information that is legally publicl

I apologise, "public scandals" was poor phrasing. My point was that the right to be forgotten aims to limit/remove access to information that is legally publicly available. In the Costeja case the court ruled that Google could be blocked from displaying the information on the grounds that it was no longer relevant (and did so under existing data protection laws, even if I believe that their application of those laws was misguided). The court also ruled that the newspaper could not be forced to remove the information. What bothers me about the right to be forgotten is that difference. The information was accurate and legal, but Google displaying that information was not. Why the split? If the information was truly irrelevant, why not have the newspaper remove it (and solve the Google issue in the process)? Why only Google (especially in the wider right to forgotten laws)?