The "right to be forgotten" is based on the principle that people can be wronged both by true and false statements about them. Here is the best sense I can mak

The "right to be forgotten" is based on the principle that people can be wronged both by true and false statements about them. Here is the best sense I can make of the dispute here: It is obvious that there are many true things you can say about most people that would be harmful to them. Part of the purpose of the law is to give people a recourse outside of violence against people who wrong them. So the question is, when you say harmful-but-true things about somebody, is there a greater concern that overrides their ability to seek recourse? The US would generally (but certainly not always) say "yes," while the EU tends to say "maybe."