This is not about enforcement of copyright, or defamation, it's about an individual's ability to censor true information simply because that information happens

This is not about enforcement of copyright, or defamation, it's about an individual's ability to censor true information simply because that information happens to be about them. No, it isn't. In fact, the original CJEU ruling was quite clear that the right to be forgotten is not absolute and does have to be balanced against competing considerations like freedom of expression on a case by case basis. However, data protection laws in Europe are much stricter than in some places when it comes to things like incomplete or out of date information. A key detail in the right to be forgotten ruling is that it is not only the original source of such information that bears responsibility for it, but also search engines that make such information easier to find. The point is that while such technologies are useful for finding good information, they can also greatly magnify any damage caused by bad information. A search engine that links to a newspaper article describing how someone was accused of rape won't necessarily also link to the follow-up article describing how the key witness later admitted in court that they made the whole thing up and was found guilty of perjury themselves. And yet, a prospective employer or girlfriend or whoever else might have reason to look that person up by name won't know that and might reach entirely the wrong conclusion if they only saw the first article. More significantly in this hypothetical scenario, thanks to modern searching technologies, every prospective employer or girlfriend or whoever else might have reason to look that person up by name is likely to see the same article with the same missing follow-up, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the entirely innocent subject's life. That's an easy example that surely no-one is going to seriously argue against, because it's very clearly misrepresentative and the potential harm is obvious. Once you get into information that is factually correct but either no longer fairly represents an individual or is concealed for good reasons anyway, things tend to get more complicated. There are reasons that justice systems typically regard even most criminal convictions as spent after a certain period of time and no longer require disclosure beyond that point. There is a reason that courts sometimes order the identities of people involved in cases before them to be concealed. There are many other good reasons for confidentiality and privacy protections. In any of these situations, while whoever is disclosing the information in the first place may be the original cause of any resulting harm (and may be punished accordingly under the law), it remains the case that a search tool making the information much quicker and easier to find magnifies any resulting harm considerably.