I don't think most of the objections are normative (ie, free speech and firearms are good) so much as empirical (ie, the nature of the internet, or of human networking in some more abstract sense, precludes a "right to be forgotten").
Except that for most of human history, except for particularly notable events, things were forgotten relatively quickly. The number of pictures and written records was VASTLY lower, as was their accessibility.
It's a peculiarity of the current age that we can find out so much about people so easily, that trivialities are preserved in photographic quality, and that these records are preserved publicly for extended periods of time.
I think the "right to be forgotten" has always implicitly existed and that we accidentally erased it before we realized what we were doing, and only now are seeing a backlash as the effects of that choice are being felt.
I don't think that's very true. Before a few centuries ago, travel was expensive. Most people rarely strayed far from their birthplace, making them likely to interact with the same group over their lifetime. If they did something embarrassing or stupid, stories would percolate indefinitely. It cost too much to move somewhere else and start a new life.
What's worse is that back then people had difficulty discovering rumors about themselves. At least today, we can do vanity searches.
That's a terrible analogy. We're talking about the difference between a small community and digital information technology in the era of ubiquitous networks. For one, the level of detail is absurdly lopsided; we're comparing high definition audio and video with what, someone's diary at worst? The records kept are essentially incomparable. Second, there is just no comparing a small close knit community to the entire world and instantaneous access.
No one is saying that people don't have a right to their memories. Even communities have the right to remember things collectively. But imagine if you couldn't get a job in your small town because everyone whispered about you being a child molester or something. You couldn't get housing. No one would talk to you. You had to beg for food. My example is a bit extreme but it illustrates the example well because some of these things happen on a massive scale to people whose potential employers web search them.
Yeah, I think that's a good assessment. And the American part might be a belief that the internet represents a completely different age than "most of human history" (I'm not sure if people around the world think that way, but my sense is that many Americans do).
