Prime Minister highlights distinction between lies and facts as Government considers 'right to be forgotten' ruling

Prime Minister David Cameron (pictured: Reuters) believes there could be a distinction between internet lies and factually accurate articles, Downing Street said yesterday as the Government considered the implications of the Google "right to be forgotten" ruling.

The internet giant has received a number of requests from individuals, including a British politician, requesting content about them be removed from search results following a European court ruling.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman indicated last night that Cameron thought that there could be a distinction between dealing with "factually inaccurate" results and people "seeking to hide" information.

"I think the PM's view is that it is right that people take some time to look at this judgment," the spokesman said.

"I think whilst looking, whilst taking time to consider and look at the judgement and possible implications, his view is that there is potentially a distinction to be drawn between dealing with the issue of inaccurate and information that is wrong, and the correction of factually inaccurate information, as distinct from what some have characterised as seeking to hide factually correct information.

"I think that is a distinction that he thinks is relevant to this."

He added: "The judgment is a fairly recent judgment, I think a large number of parties will be considering it closely."

Requests for links to information to be removed from Google search results include one from a man who tried to kill members of his own family, and wants links to a news story about the incident be removed.

Others include one from an actor who had an affair with a teenager asking for links to articles to be hidden, and the child of a celebrity who has asked for links to stories about a criminal conviction taken down.

A British politician seeking re-election asked Google to remove results from its searches following the ruling at the European Court of Justice.

Asked about the politician's case, the Prime Minister's spokesman said: "Rather than pick on and try and draw distinctions between particular groups, he would rather … tend to consider a distinction between information that is factually inaccurate that may be online and information that is accurate.

"I think that's where he would draw the distinction, between types of information rather than types of individuals."

He added: "His view is that that distinction is a relevant one when we consider the implications of the judgement."

Comments
No comments to display

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

six − 6 =

CLOSE
CLOSE