Of course it's a tradeoff and needs to be balanced. The right to be forgotten was never about censoring information itself, just making it less available (e.g.

Of course it's a tradeoff and needs to be balanced. The right to be forgotten was never about censoring information itself, just making it less available (e.g. newspapers do not need to erase names etc.). The more publicity your case had, the less like it gets to be forgotten. But I think you touch the issue. I don't think the answer to your questions is always an unconditional yes, the opposite question can also be agreed upon. There is no right or wrong. If our goal as society is rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders (and not punishment as an end to itself), then starting with a clean slate after serving your sentence is a fair solution. Shouldn't people have the chance to leave their past behind and not be followed by their mistakes for the end of their live? They only have one. But if we choose this path, we have to be realistic, since your question are certainly important consequences. > The public’s clarity is what’s being traded here. I would argue that the public and any relevant professional groups should never forget fraudsters such as the CEO of workriot or theranos. I agree, but I think is on the "should not be forgotten" part of the balance. I think it may highlight cultural differences. In another comment "freedom of speech" in germany was brought up. It's a similar tradeoff there and we rely on a reasonable legal system to implement it correctly and balance the tradeoffs. I agree even stronger with our approach on "freedom of speech" and certainly do not want rights as phrased for example in the US constitution. In my point of view it's an important lesson from our history in germany. Its something I very, very strongly agree with.