Another major issue is that one person's right to be forgotten is another person's right to remember. Stories are rarely about a single person -- what happens if one person in an article wants it removed and a second person doesn't?
Bafflingly, the ruling goes completely against the opinion given by Advocate General Niilo Jaaskinen last June. He said that Google should not be held responsible for content from third parties and that the Directive does not establish a general 'right to be forgotten', but merely the rights to rectification or deletion of data that is "incomplete or inaccurate". He said that "subjective preference alone does not amount to a compelling legitimate grounds" for deleting personal data that are contrary to a person's interests. Doing so, he said, would amount to "censorship".
Why on Earth did the Court of Justice of the European Union not listen to him?