Except these aren't the same thing at all. You're comparing governments or companies covering for themselves, to individuals having search results removed (not the actual content) about themselves. You know, this would be tragically funny if some seedy porn business with a subsidiary that was legally in the US had its primary operations in a country where the porn min age is 15 and it posted nude pictures of american girls age 15-17 against their will accessible for the whole world. You bet your ass americans and the US would be up in arms and demanding it take the pictures down or else!

Except you are comparing what an individual legally requests about the persons own information, with sharia law and oppression. Very convenient america not only controls the law, but also most of the prime services of the internet.

No it doesn't, this is nowhere near the same. You're comparing a private persons decision about his own information, to government oppression? That is like comparing fighting for a persons copyright to North Korea censorship. Just silly.

Americans have this funny system of giving as little rights they can to whoever is labelled "criminal", gladly ignoring that this label is out of their control and as such their vaunted rights are so easily removed and almost laughable.

None of these have anything to do with what a legal residence wants to do about search results in the persons name. (the information will still be there, so not censored)

jklovanc - You are completely missing the issue and comparing apples to toasters. This is about what their own citizens legally and willfully request about a company operating in that country about their own information, not government enacted censorship to protect itself or its interests. And this has no real impact on internet openness.

About its citizens sure, as it is the same company.

I am sure you campaign against "do not track" browsers then?

Sure, just as much as "Do not track" browsers is censorship.

Nope, you get an armed escort to a jail cell and thrown in prison.

So you're saying that any sort of serious investigation relies solely on google searched? Way to shit on law enforcement.

Maybe, but individuals won't do background checks.

How is it censorship if a person wants to have information about themselves not be in search results? The information is still there. Your example is stupid, you mean to say that search results should be used as public law enforcement? So if European companies puts in damaging information about US citizens that would infringe on their rights permanently, you should just suck it up and take it?

You mean like the US enforces laws protecting its citizens elsewhere?

That your opinion exists is an abomination. Truth can deal massive damage as well, combining truth and false accusations. I could post all data regarding an american kid with pictures, it would be the truth, but it would be huge risk to the kid. Combining truthful information about "Scoot O'Brian" to link you to certain sites might not be dangerous, but then combining it with false data/accusations of others and suddenly "Scoot O'Brian" gets publically known as a pedophile or a rapist.