AVRUPA VE AMERİKAN YARGI SİSTEMLERİNİN “UNUTULMA HAKKI-İFADE ÖZGÜRLÜĞÜ” ÇATIŞMASINA YAKLAŞIMI

Öz

Modern teknolojilerin ortaya çıkmasıyla mahkemelerin bir tarafta özel hayatın gizliliğine saygı, kişisel verilerin korunması gibi haklarla ilişkili olan unutulma hakkı ve diğer tarafta ifade özgürlüğü arasında denge kurma mücadelesi daha zorlu bir hale gelmiştir. Bilişim teknolojisinde yaşanan gelişmeler neticesinde, haberler çoğunlukla çevrimiçi tüketildiği için, haberlerde adı geçen kişiler, saniyeler içinde arama motorları vasıtasıyla ifşa edilmeye karşı savunmasız durumda kalmaktadırlar. Bu tür bir teşhir, kişinin itibarını, gelecekteki muhtemel kariyer fırsatlarını, eğitim sürecini, kişisel ilişkilerini tehlikeye atmanın yanı sıra zihinsel ve duygusal sağlıklarına zarar verebilmektedir. Bunun da ötesinde, kişinin hayatında yeni bir sayfa açmasına, değişmesine olanak vermeyip, onu geçmişe hapsedebilmektedir. Kişinin kendisine ait bilgiyi tashih etme, silinmesini istemeyi de kapsayan unutulma hakkı, kişinin geçmişinden ibaret olmadığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışmada öncelikle bir kavram olarak unutulma hakkının tarihsel kökeni, bu hakkın önemi ve koruduğu menfaatler ele alınacak, ardından söz konusu hakkın ifade özgürlüğü ile ilişkisi değerlendirilecektir. Unutulma hakkı ve ifade özgürlüğü arasındaki dengenin sağlanması konusunda Avrupa yargı sistemi ve Amerikan yargı sisteminde farklı yaklaşımlar söz konusudur. Bu doğrultuda, çalışmanın devamında bu yaklaşımlar çeşitli mahkeme kararları ışığında ortaya koyulmaya çalışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Unutulma hakkı
• kişisel verilerin korunması
• özel hayatın gizliliği
• ifade özgürlüğü
• AİHM Kararları
• Amerikan Federal Yüksek Mahkemesi Kararları.

The European and the American Judicial Systems’Approaches to the “Right to be Forgotten-Freedom of Expression” Conflict

Öz

The struggle of the courts to strike a balance between the right to be forgotten, which is associated with rights such as privacy and protection of personal data, on the one hand, and freedom of expression on the other, has become more challenging with the advent of modern technologies. As the news is overwhelmingly consumed online as a result of developments in information technology, the people mentioned in the news are vulnerable to being disclosed via search engines within seconds. Such exposure can jeopardize a person's reputation, possible future career opportunities, educational process, personal relationships, as well as harm his mental and emotional health. Moreover, it does not allow the person to make a new start in his life or to change, so he can be imprisoned by the past. A person's right to be forgotten, including correcting his own information and asking for it to be deleted, reveals that the person is not just about his past. In this paper, first of all, the historical origin of the right to be forgotten as a concept, the significance of this right and the interests it protects will be discussed, and then its relationship with the freedom of expression will be evaluated. The European judicial system and the American judicial system take different approaches to balance the right to be forgotten with the freedom of expression. In this direction, finally, these approaches will be tried to be put forward in the light of various decisions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• The Right to be Forgotten
• personal data protection
• privacy
• ECHR Decisions
• US Supreme Court Decisions.

Kaynakça

1. Ambrose M L and Ausloos J, “The Right to Be Forgotten Across the Pond” (2013) 3 (1) Journal of Information Policy
2. Bernal P, “A Right to Delete” (2011) 2 (2) European Journal of Law and Technology
3. Brock G, Right to Be Forgotten: Privacy and The Media in The Digital Age (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford 2016)
4. Cook L, “The Right to Be Forgotten: A Step In The Right Direction for Cyberspace Law and Policy” (2015) 6 (1) Journal of Law, Technology & the Internet
5. Craven J B, “Personhood: The Right To Be Let Alone” (1976) 1976 (4) Duke Law Journal
6. De Andrade N G, “Oblivion: The Right to be Different from Oneself: Re-Proposing the Right to be Forgotten” in A. Ghezzi, A.G. Pereira and L. Vesnić-Alujević (eds), The Ethics of Memory in a Digital Age (Palgrave Macmillan 2014)
7. De Andrade N G, “Right to Personal Identity: The Challanges of Ambient Intelligence and the Need for a New Legal Conceptualization” in S. Gutwirth and others (eds), Privacy and Data Protection: An Element of Choice, (Springer Publisher 2011)
8. De Terwangne C, “Internet Privacy and the Right to Be Forgotten/Right to Oblivion” (2012) 1 (13) Revista de los Estudios de Derecho y Ciencia Política de la UOC

9. Dowdell J W, “An American Right to Be Forgotten” (2017) 52 (2), Tulsa Law Review
10. Erdoğan M, “Demokratik Toplumda İfade Özgürlüğü: Özgürlükçü Bir Perspektif” (2001) (24) Liberal Düşünce
11. Gajda A, “Privacy, Press, and The Right to Be Forgotten in The United States” (2018) 93 (1) Washington Law Review
12. Giglio E D, “Unwanted Publicity, the News Media, and the Constitution: Where Privacy Rights Compete with the First Amendment”, (1979) 12 (2) Akron Law Review
13. Hornung G and Schnabel C, “Data Protection in Germany I: The Population Census Decision and the Right to Informational Self-determination” (2009) 25 (1) Computer Law & Security Report
14. Işıktaç Y, “Ceza Adaleti Açısından Hapis Cezası ve Rehabilitasyon İlişkisi” (2013) LXXI (1) İÜHFM
15. Jacoby N, “Redefining the Right To Be Let Alone: Privacy Rights And The Constitutionality Of Technical Surveillance Measures In Germany And The United States” (2007) 35 (3) Georgia Journal Of International And Comparative Law
16. Kobrin S, “Safe Harbours Are Hard To Find: The Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Dispute, Territorial Jurisdiction and Global Governance” (2004) 30 (1) Review of International Studies
17. Kodde C, “Germany’s ‘Right to be forgotten’ – between the freedom of expression and the right to informational self-determination” (2016) 30 (1-2) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology
18. Koops B J, “Forgetting Footprints, Shunning Shadows: A Critical Analysis of the Right to Be Forgotten in Big Data Practice” (2011) 8 (3) SCRIPTed
19. LoCascio S M, “Forcing Europe to Wear Rose-Colored Google Glass: The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ and the Struggle to Manage Compliance Post Google Spain” (2015) 54 (1) COLUM. J. TRANSNAT’L L.
20. Mantelero A, “The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the Roots of the Right to Be Forgotten” (2013) 29 (3) Computer Law & Security Review
21. Markou C, “The Right To Be Forgotten: Ten Reasons Why It Should Be Forgotten” in S. Gutwirth, Ronald Leenes and Paul de Hert (eds), Reforming European Data Protection Law (1st edn, Springer 2015)
22. McNealy J E, “The Emerging Conflict between Newsworthiness and the Right to Be Forgotten” (2012) 39 (2) Northern Kentucky Law Review
23. Miyashita H, “The Right To Be Forgotten and Search Engine Liability” (2016) 2 (8) Brussels Privacy Hub, Working Paper
24. Quint P E, “Free Speech and Private Law in German Constitutional Theory” (1989) 48 (2) Maryland Law Review
25. Reed T, “Indigenous Dignity and the Right to Be Forgotten” (2021) 46 (4) BYU Law Review
26. Roagna I, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi Kapsamında Özel Hayata ve Aile Hayatına Saygı Gösterilmesi Hakkının Korunması (çev. Ayşe Gül Alkış Schaling) (Avrupa Konseyi İnsan Hakları El Kitapları 2012)
27. Rouvroy A and Poullet Y, “The Right to Informational Self-Determination and the Value of Self-Development: Reassessing the Importance of Privacy for Democracy” in S. Gutwirth, Ronald Leenes and Paul de Hert (eds), Reforming European Data Protection Law (1st edn, Springer 2015)
28. Tamò A and George D, “Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age, Journal of Intellectual Property” (2014) 5 (2) Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law
29. Tanör B, Siyasi Düşünce Hürriyeti ve 1961 Türk Anayasası (Öncü Kitabevi 1969)
30. Von Bergen C W, Martin S B and Cody B, “The Right to Be Forgotten in the United States: Part II” (2020) 6 (7) Pratt’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Report
31. Weber R H, “The Right To Be Forgotten: More Than a Pandora’s Box?” (2011) 2 (1) JIPITEC
32. Franz Werro, “The Right to Inform v. The Right to be Forgotten: A Transatlantic Clash” in Aurelia Colombi Ciacchi, Christine Godt, Peter Rott and Leslie Jane Smith (eds), Liability in The Third Millennium (Georgetown Public Law Research Paper No. 2, 2009)
33. Akıncı A N, “Avrupa Birliği Genel Veri Koruma Tüzüğü’nün Getirdiği Yenilikler Ve Türk Hukuku Bakımından Değerlendirilmesi” (2017) TC Kalkınma Bakanlığı, Çalışma Raporu 6
34. Baraniuk C, “Tim Cook Blasts Weaponisation of Personal Data and Praises GDPR” (24.10. 2018) BBC NEWS
35. Bischoff P, “Internet Privacy Laws by State: Which US States Best Protect Privacy Online?” (23.10.2019) Comparitech
36. BVerfG, Order of the First Senate of 15 December 1983 - 1 BvR 209/83,
37. Court of Justice of the European Union Press Release No. 117/15, “The Court of Justice declares that the Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision is invalid” (Oct. 6, 2015) Judgment in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner
38. De Terwangne C, “The Right to be Forgotten and Informational Autonomy in the Digital Environment” (2013) European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen Report EUR 26434 < jrc86750_cecile_fv.pdf>
39. Dressler V, “Google Quietly Rolls Out the Right to be Forgotten mechanism in the U.S.” (14 June 2022) The Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association
40. European Commission, “A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union” (2010) Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The Regions
41. European Commission, “Adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework”,
42. European Commission, “Data Protection: European Commission adopts new adequacy decision for safe and trusted EU-US data flows”
43. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),
44. Gibbs S, “What is Safe Harbour and Why Did the EUCJ Just Declare It Invalid?” (Oct. 6, 2015) THE GUARDIAN
45. Google Şeffaflık Raporu, “Avrupa Gizlilik Yasası Kapsamında İçerik Kaldırma Talepleri”
46. Google Şeffaflık Raporu, “İçerik Kaldırmaya İlişkin Resmi Makamların Talepleri”,
47. Google “Transparency Report”,
48. Herring C and Smith S S, “The Limits of Ban the Box Legislation” (2022) Berkeley University Institute for Research on Labor and Employment https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-Limits-of-Ban-the-Box-Legislation-1.pdf
49. Hoboken J V, “The Proposed Right to Be Forgotten Seen from the Perspective of Our Right to Remember, Freedom of Expression Safeguards in a Converging Information Environment” (2013) Prepared for the European Commission Appointment Letter No. 257971 Institute for Information law (IViR)
50. Jaffe J and Hautala L, “What the GDPR Means for Facebook, the EU, and You” (Nov. 29, 2019) CNET
51. Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner & Digital Rights Ireland Ltd.;
52. New York State Assembly, Bill No A05323 (2017)
53. Roberts J J, “The Right to Be Forgotten from Google? Forget It, Says US Crowd” (12.03.2015) Fortune
54. Rosen J, “The Right To Be Forgotten” (2012) 64 (88) Stanford Law Review Online
55. Senate Bill- 568 Privacy: Internet: Minors 23 September 2013,
56. Simmons and Simmons, “EU Permits Unrestricted Flow of Personal Data with Immediate Effect” (12 July 2023),
57. Schwartz J, “Two German Killers Demanding Anonymity Sue Wikipedia’s Parent” (2019) The New York Times
58. The Constitution of the United States of America,
59. Thomson Reuters, “Right To Be Forgotten - Erasing Your Private Information From Cyberspace”,
60. Volkszählungsurteil in englischer Sprache: Census Act,
61. Xanthoulis N, “Conceptualizing a Right to Oblivion in the Digital World: A Human Rights- Based Approach” (2012) Social Science Research Network
62. 95/46/EC sayılı AB Veri Koruma Direktifi (Directive 95/46/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data),