674 V O L . 7 5 P A R T 5 S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 7 THE ADVOCATE
wide on Google: see Mark Scott, “Still Fighting for
the Right to Be Forgotten Online”, The Irish Times (5
February 2015), online: <www.irishtimes.com/busi
online-1.2091260>; Joseph Plambeck,
“Daily Report: Google and the Spread of the ‘Right
to Be Forgotten’”, The New York Times (6 August
2015), online: <bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/
to-be-forgotten>. Similarly, Max Mosley, a former
Formula One president whose sadomasochist
orgy with sex workers was recorded and released
online, successfully enforced his right to be forgotten
against Google in Paris and Hamburg, prior to settling
his disputes with the search engine giant: Ulrike
Dauer & Lisa Fleisher, “Former Formula One Chief
Max Mosley Settles Legal Dispute with Google”, The
Wall Street Journal (15 May 2015), online:
1431702038>. More recently, France’s Commission
nationale de l’informatique et des libertés fined
Google €100,000 for its failure to follow an order
applying the right to be forgotten: Sam Schechner,
“France Fines Google over Right to Be Forgotten”,
The Wall Street Journal (24 March 2016), online:
to-be-forgotten-1458847256>. Courts in
Japan and Hong Kong have also dealt with similar
issues: see Tomoko Otake, “‘Right to Be Forgotten’ on
the Internet Gains Traction in Japan”, The Japan
Times (9 December 2014), online: <www.japantimes.
ction-in-japan/#.VwtE_0ekyh->; Mark Parsons,
Eugene Low & Dominic Edmondson, “A Right to Be
Forgotten in Hong Kong?”, Hogan Lovells (14 August
2015), online: <www.hlmediacomms.com/2015
addition, in January 2016, a right to be forgotten
law came into effect in Russia. This law applies to
information that is distributed contrary to legislative
requirements, is inaccurate, or is accurate but no
longer relevant: see Irina Anyukhina, “‘Right to Be
Forgotten’ in Russian Data Protection Law Has
Passed All Stages of Approval”, The National Law
Review (21 July 2015), online: <www.natlawreview.
19. Make no mistake: children are not simply passive victims
of privacy invasions and reputational damage.
Children are active guardians of their privacy and
online reputation. Research shows that children use
various methods to protect their reputation and privacy
online. Young people are not careless about or
unable to protect their privacy and reputation. This is
not what makes them different from adults. Young
people differ from adults in that they interact differently
with the Internet and are subject to different
pressures when it comes to social media.
20. Usha Goswami, Child Psychology: A Very Short
Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press,
2014) at 571.
21. Ibid at 614.
22. Mary Madden et al, “Teens, Social Media, and Privacy”,
Pew Research Center (21 May 2013), online:
23. Dafna Lemish, Children and Media: A Global Perspective
(Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015) at 178.
24. Nancy Doucette, “Something to Talk About”, The
Rough Notes Company, Inc., citing Matt Cullina,
25. Palfrey & Gasser, supra note 7 at 54.
26. June Eric Udorie, “Social Media Is Harming the Mental
Health of Teenagers. The State Has to Act”, The
Guardian (16 September 2015), online: <www.theguardian.
27. I genuinely “like” each of these posts I come across,
and would undoubtedly make similar posts in similar
28. See e.g. In Re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation
, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 6428 (DNJ).
29. Kaplan Test Prep, “Facebook Checking Is No Longer
Unchartered Territory in College Admissions: Percentage
of Admissions Officers Who Visited an
Applicant’s Profile on the Rise” (21 September 2011),
online: <press.kaptest.com/press-releases /facebook
30. CareerBuilder, “Number of Employers Passing on
Applicants Due to Social Media Posts Continues to
Rise, According to New CareerBuilder Survey” (26
June 2014), online: <www.careerbuilder.com/share
31. Maeve Duggan, “Is Social Media the New Wingman
for Singles?”, Pew Research Center (12 November
2013), online: <www.pewresearch.org/facttank/
32. For a more detailed example of longitudinal Internet
data collection and “digital dossiers”, see Andy’s
story in Palfrey & Gasser, supra note 7 at 37.
33. Not to mention Big Data.
34. See e.g. Natasha Simmons, “Forget Me Not?
Europe’s ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ in the Google Age”,
(2014) 35:6 Business Law Review 202 at 202; Felicity
Gerry, “The Rule of Law Online: You Can’t Steal
Cakes That Google Hasn’t Baked!” (2015) 18:7 Journal
of Internet Law 3; Andrew RW Hughes, “Does the
United States Have an Answer to the European Right
to Be Forgotten?” (2014) 7:1 Landslide 18.
35. Abrams v United States, 250 US 616 (1919)
Abrams; R v Keegstra, 1990 3 SCR 697
Keegstra, citing Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (Attorney
General), 1989 1 SCR 927 at 976 Irwin Toy. Note
that the US and Canada have diverged in their interpretation
of the truth-seeking endeavour, especially
in the context of hate speech.