top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Law and Humanities
Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2827-9735

Judge Gavel
 Scales of Justice
City Crowds
People in Library
open access

Published: 25 April 2023

A Comparative View and Brief Analysis at the New Right to be Forgotten: The European And American Privacy Law

Julieth Tatiana Salgado Silva

The University of Melbourne, Australia

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf



Pages: 25-41

Keywords: Privacy, Privacy Law, Privacy Right, Social Media


The purpose of this research is to make an analysis of the moment when the privacy of an individual became a sensitive element which could be internationally protected and limited to public accessing. The research tends to start by showing the current perspective of the privacy understandings, based on sounded cases of celebrities which allowed Courts to make and establish positions to direct the treatment of the privacy right; after, it seeks to make an overview of the scenario when privacy is highly controversial: internet and social networks. Then, the study of the European and United States legislations in the subject will open the door to bring the analysis of the new right to be forgotten and how this new concept is being treated and has developed in the last years.


Allen, Anita. (1988). Uneasy Access: Privacy for Women in a Free Society. Parliament of the United States.
Arrington v. New York Times Co. (1982) N.Y. Court of Appeals. 55N. Y. 2d 433; 434 N.E. 2d 1319; 449 N.Y.S. 2d 941; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3203; 8MediaL. Rep. 1351.
Ausloos, Jef.(2012).The right to be forgotten- Worth Remembering (Computer Law & Security Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, (pp.143-152).
Benz v. Wash. Newspaper Publ’g Co. (2006). No. 05-1760, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71827 (pp.25).
Benn Stanley Isaac. (1971). Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for Persons. (Robert Pennock & John W. Chapman Eds., Nomos XII: Privacy 1,10, Atherton Press. (pp.1-26).
Campbell v. MGN Ltd (2004) UKHL22.
Cefalu v. Globe Newspaper Co., (1979). 391N.E.2d935.Mass.App.Ct.
Coderch, PabloSalvador. (1988) El Derecho de la Libertad. (The Right of Freedom). Colección Estudios Constitucionales. (pp.97-99).
Cooley Thomas, McIntyre. (1888). A treatise on the law of torts or the wrongs which arise independent of contract. 2nd ed., Callaghan and Company.
Dietemann v. Time, Inc. (1968). 284F. Supp. 925 C.D.
Duran v. Detroit News, Inc.,(1993). 504N. W. 2d 715, 718.Mich Ct. App.
European Commission. (2010). “A Comprehensive Approach On Personal Data Protection In The European Union” 609 final:
European Convention on Human Rights, (1950).
Fried, Charles. (1968) Privacy. 77 Yale Law Journal. (pp.475-482).
Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González. C-131/12.ECLI:EU:C:2014:317.
Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965). 381U.S. (pp.479-509).
Hall v. Post. (1988). 372S.E.2d711.N.C.
Keeton, W. Page. (1984). Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts. 5th ed., Lawyer’s ed.
Levin Avner & Sanchez Abril Patricia. (2009). Two Notions of Privacy Online. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, Social Science Research Network, Vol. 11 (pp.1001-1051).
MC Clurg, Andrew J. (1995). Bringing Privacy Law Out of the Closet: A Tort Theory of Liability for Intrusions in Public Places. 73N. C. L. Rev. 989 (pp.1000-1001).
Mc Kennitt v. Ash (CA), (2007) 3WLR194.
Mc Namara v. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., (1991). 802S. W. 2d901, 905Tex App.
Miller v. Motorola, Inc., (1990). 560N.E .2d 900.I11.App.Ct.
Newcomb Hotel Co. v. Corbett, 27G. (1921). App. 365.
O’Callagan, Xavier. (1991). Libertad de expresión y sus límites: honor, intimidad de imagen. (Freedom of Speech and its Limits: Honour, Privacy and Image) (Editorial Revista de Derecho Privado – Editorial de Derechos Reunidas, Edersa, Barcelona.
Parker, Richard B. (1974). A Definition of Privacy. Rutgers Law Review 27. (pp.281).
Prosser, William L. (1960). Privacy. 48 California Law Review (pp.383-389).
Rallo Lombarte, Artemi. El Derecho al Olvido y su Protección (The Right to be Forgotten and its Protection ). Revista Telos, núm. 85 (pp.104-108).
Reeves v. Fox Television, (1997). 983F. Supp. 703, 709. N. D. Ohio.
Requa v.Kent School District. (2007). U.S. Dist. Lexxis 40920. D. Wash.
Restatement (Second) of Torts. 652.
Sabrina W. v. Willman, (1995). 540 N. W. 2d 364. Nec. Ct. App.
Sipple v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., (1984) .201 Cal Rptr. 665.
Solove, Daniel J. (2002). Conceptualizing Privacy. California Law Review. (pp.1087-1094).
Sutherland v. Kroger Co. (1959). 110 S.E. 2d7 16.
Vassiliades v.Garfinckel’s. (1985). 492A. 2d 580, 590. D.C.
Von Hannover v. Germany, (2004) III Eur. Ct. H. R. 294.
Warren, Samuel & Brandeis, Louis. (1980). The Right to Privacy. (Harvard Law Review, Vol. IV, No.15. (pp.205-207).
Weber, Rolf H. (2011). The right to be forgotten: more than a Pandora's box? (Journal of intellectual property, information technology and e-commerce law, Vol.2, (pp.120–130).
Werro, Franz. (2009). The Right to Inform v. The Right to be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash. Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, Christine G (pp.292).
Westin, Alan F. (1968). Privacy and Freedom. (Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 25, No. 1. (pp.166-170).
Whitman, James Q. The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty. (Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship, 2004) 1161-1162.
Wilson v. Harvey. (2005). 84 2N. E. 2d 83. Ohio Ct. App.

bottom of page