Last week, this column discussed the benefits of making the ‘right to be forgotten’ a civil right. This week, the opposing side of the argument will be presented.

The ‘right to be forgotten’, terminology first used in the EU court in 2010, increased dialogue about privacy concerns in a world of expanded Internet use.

Ultimately, the court decided that while “individuals [do] have the right… to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them, this [only] applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing.” Because it is impossible to determine when data is no longer relevant or has become excessive, it would be absurd to make the right to be forgotten a civil right.

Not only does the right to be forgotten create inequality, but it also can become a source of unjust government interference. In order for a moral society to exist, any civil rights enacted into legislation must be fair to all citizens.

Jeffery Rosen, a law professor at the George Washington University, said in the Stanford Law Review that, “[Deletion Regulations] are not limited to personal data that people ‘have given out themselves’; instead, they create a new right to delete personal data, defined broadly as ‘any information relating to a data subject.’”

The right to be forgotten allows for the deletion of not only information posted by the individual, but also of any information relating to that individual. The right to be forgotten, in the context of a civil right, would give every person biased control over Internet searches. At their base, civil rights are a tool used by governments to ensure freedom and limit corruption.

If the right to be forgotten becomes an integral part of the governing system in the U.S., countless unintended consequences — such as increased corruption, media bias and the sort — will become reality. The right to knowledge, a basic liberty, would be infringed upon when citizens are given the freedom to determine what information pertinent to them can be removed from accessibility through search engines.

The right to be forgotten, as a civil right, also increases and creates incentive for censorship. Danny O’Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in May of 2014 that, “Attempting to limit the propagation of information by applying scattergun censorship [like the right to deletion] will simply temporarily distort one part of the collective record in favor of those who can take the time and money to selectively edit away their own online blemishes.”

Allowing individuals substantial control over Internet searches undeniable hinders peoples’ and news agencies’ ability to gather correct and objective information.

In making choices, individual rationality is a prerequisite to sensible choices. With the right to be forgotten comes a limitation of the information about the individual, and hinders enlightened action. The right to be forgotten does not give citizens the power to protect themselves, but puts the burden of censorship on the citizens themselves. As such, rationality and objectivism are hindered and level headed decisions cannot be made.

Finally, as it is, the right to be forgotten is unachievable. In order for civil rights to be meaningful, there must be a level of achievable success, both in increasing the quality of life as well as producing tangible results. It is impossible to regulate the Internet.

James Boyle of the University of Cincinnati Law Review said, “The technology of the medium, the geographical distribution of its users, and the nature of its content all make the Internet specially resistant to state regulation. The state is too big, too slow, and too geographically and technically limited to regulate a global citizen’s fleeting interactions over a mercurial medium.”

If the right to be forgotten was to be adapted as a civil right, the only option of the government would be to complete and comply with every submitted request. It would be difficult to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information, creating a system of removal that would deem search engines worthless.

If the right to be forgotten was a civil right, there would be no transparency within all spheres of life, corruption and censorship would increase, and a system of unsustainable procedure would be adapted.

As open-minded DU students, we realize the potential behind various facts and know that past mistakes make way for future choices. The only way to ensure rational thought and general internet freedom would be to evaluate each request for accuracy and not attempt to apply a blanket solution to a deeply embedded problem.