The 1st Amendment, as it is interpreted in the USA, bars this. It's not absolutism that's blocking a US Right to Be Forgotten, it's decades of court precedence.

The 1st Amendment, as it is interpreted in the USA, bars this. It's not absolutism that's blocking a US Right to Be Forgotten, it's decades of court precedence. It's not arguing that we can never restrict information ever, it's just that the US Supreme court has consistently ruled that publishing factual information is protected. > If one objects to the right to be forgotten altogether, then one objects to the right to demand that even false and libelous content can be removed from the internet. You can sue for defamation, but you can't prevent the publication and spread of defaming content. We have exceptions to the 1st Amendment for defamation and copyright. They are very, very narrow exceptions. The Right to Be Forgotten works in Europe largely because Europe has different standards than the US on what Freedom of Speech means. When a US citizen and a European citizen talk about Freedom of Speech, they're not necessarily talking about the same thing. That's not to say Europe's take is necessarily wrong. But it is to say that Andrew Yang is running to be the president of the US, so the European interpretation of Free Speech isn't relevant to his platform proposals. > the right to be forgotten doesn't apply to private or public spaces, it applies to data on the internet Public/private spaces don't go away on the Internet. A corporation or private actor can delete content from a forum/website they control for any reason. They have a Freedom of Association. But the US government may not compel them to do so, except where that content falls into extremely narrow exceptions that have been carved out over decades of legal debate.