Europe’s top “supreme” court ruled on Tuesday in favor of a Spanish man who asked Google to remove links to his home’s repossession in 1998. The case pitted the rights of persons’s information to “be forgotten” versus the right of free speech. In law, important rights often come into conflict and it can be difficult to choose which should be paramount. For example, the right of the public to observe a criminal or civil trial (i.e. openness of the judicial system) versus the privacy rights of parties and witnesses who are called to testify.

In the Spanish case, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled Google can be required to remove data that is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed.” The court said the rights of people whose privacy has been infringed outweighed the general public interest.

This will make things difficult for Google and other search engines, as it will cost some money to search out such sensitive information. Google also argued they simply point to other information, and do not create or store it.

The European Commission proposed in 2012 that people should have the “right to be forgotten” on the internet. This proposal was watered down by the European Parliament last year in favor of a “right to erasure” of specific information.

The ruling does not bind Google in the U.S. but I think it is a harbinger of things to come.

The proposal needs the blessing of the 28 European Union governments before it can become law. Google, Facebook and other internet companies have lobbied against such plans, worried about the extra costs.

In California, a state “eraser” law was recently passed, which will require tech companies to remove material posted by a minor, if the user requests it. The new rule is scheduled to take effect in 2015 and will likely face court challenges.

In the days before the internet, the common understanding was that once something was published, it was “forever.”  Compared to the internet, this was never true.  Newspapers are thrown out or fade over time.  One looking for information can still go to a library and look at old newspaper clippings on microfilm.  It takes some effort and the searcher must have the motivation to seek out the information.  But the modern internet search is so easy – available to everyone with a smartphone or other device, that it has the effect of keeping all information, including “bad” stuff, up front and easily accessed.  So from a private person’s perspective, I like this ruling.  On there other hand, won’t it also erase the damaging or compromising information of less sympathetic entities like polluters, criminals, political cronies (donors, lobbyists) and the like?  Its too early to tell, but this is a fascinating development in my opinion.