Yes, but the way i'm reading this, it won't be the courts who decide whether a matter is of public interest, it will be the responsibility of the service providers. Even if this is not the case, at least in the states "public interest" is more often than not interpreted to mean "been discussed by the legislature". In that respect, it seems sort of like the DMCA (automatic take down, then the onus is the user to provide proof it doesn't infringe).
It seems like this provides a haven for cult leaders and those sorts of people who may not fall into the category of "public interest", but would be nevertheless in the public interest to know about. Also, what if I don't want to myself be identified. Again, the cult example is a good one here. Say I post something about David Miscaviage of Scientology or another high up official. Does this now mean they are effectively immune to criticism? Will entire websites such as xenu.net and the like be removed from Google's results because they happen to mention individuals who may not be covered by this "public interest" label? What if I don't have the money to go to court?
It seems to me that Europeans are reflexively taking the "privacy" side of this argument even when in actual fact what is being done has nothing to do with privacy, rather censorship. A person has a right to privacy for sure, but once things do go public, preventing others from talking about it infringes on *their* rights. You can't defend one right by taking away another. If that's what you think you're doing, you need to re-evaluate your definition of rights.
You may disagree with me, but i'd be willing to bet good money that in a few years the abuse of this law will have Europeans switching to VPNs to get unfiltered US internet service.