> including information from 2014 about a Dutch doctor who The Guardian reported was suspended for poor care of a patient.
FWIW, according to the Guardian article they reference, that case was not about getting the fact that the doctor was investigated and temporary suspended (that's public record), but a website taking such records and publishing a "blacklist of doctors unfit to treat patients". It's more a libel-like case than a privacy one.
> "The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings.
The court further rejected Google’s claim that most people would have difficulty in finding the relevant information on the medical board’s Big-register, where the records are publicly held."
That statement sounds to me to be synonymous with "this doctor does not / should not have their license"; given that a court actually decided otherwise, this looks libelous to me.
When did a court decide it was libelous? As far as I understand a court decided it fell under Right to be Forgotten, which surely extends beyond libel laws.
This is a circular argument. The courts decided it falls under the law in question, but that isn’t a justification in itself for the law in question.
> "The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings."
Again, IANAL, but what I’m reading does not seem relevant to libel. Namely, the pejorative title of the website has nothing to do with the claims they’re making.
If the doc had a libel case, why the hell did they not go for that, instead?
FWIW, according to the Guardian article they reference, that case was not about getting the fact that the doctor was investigated and temporary suspended (that's public record), but a website taking such records and publishing a "blacklist of doctors unfit to treat patients". It's more a libel-like case than a privacy one.
> "The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings.
The court further rejected Google’s claim that most people would have difficulty in finding the relevant information on the medical board’s Big-register, where the records are publicly held."
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/21/dutch-sur...