SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION were expunged or sealed. The Court refused to grant an order of removal since the 2013 reports were accurate and truthful, even if incomplete and dated. The Court was “not unsympathetic to plaintiff’s wish to reset the narrative about past events nor was the court unconcerned about the potential collateral damage the old reports could have on plaintiff’s employment, housing or credit prospects”. However, as this was not a defamation case and the defendants were newspaper publishers, according to the judge, the plaintiff’s claim for relief was superseded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 5. Public Figures or Public Officials Claims on the “right to be forgotten” made by public officials are particularly problematic, for all international human rights standards on freedom of expression put them under the duty to withstand higher levels of scrutiny. In functioning democracies, public officials must not only develop their jobs according to the public’s mandate, but are also accountable to those who elected them if they fail to execute their duties accordingly. Hence, the idea that e.g. past misdeeds can somehow be eliminated from the public record threatens the fundamental value of political accountability that underlie representative institutions. A case in which this issue was considered within a “right to be forgotten” claim was NT1 and NT2 v. Google LLC, where the England and Wales High Court giving its first decision on the “right to be forgotten” ordered Google to de-index search results referring to the spent conviction of a businessman known as NT2 but rejected a similar request made by a second businessman, NT1. The claimants had been convicted of criminal offenses many years ago and complained that search results returned by Google that featured links to third-party reports about the convictions were inaccurate and/ or old, irrelevant and of no public interest, or otherwise an illegitimate interference with their rights. The claims were made under data protection law and the English law tort of misuse of private information. The Court rejected NT1’s request based on the fact that he was a public figure with a role in public life so that the crime and its punishment could not be considered of a private nature, but was regarded as a matter of public interest, specifically a business crime, its prosecution and punishment. Moreover the Court said that NT1 had not accepted his guilt, had misled the public and the Court, and shown no remorse. In contrast, the Court upheld NT2’s removal claim, reasoning that his crime did not involve dishonesty, his punishment had been based on a plea of guilt, and information about the crime and its punishment had become out of date, irrelevant and of no sufficient legitimate interest to users of Google to justify its continued availability. In Chile, the Supreme Court rejected a similar claim but ordered for information to be corrected. In Maureira v. Google and others, the Supreme Court had to decide on a case concerning the de-indexation of news articles in different websites and search engines on the criminal process followed against Benjamín Maureira Álvarez, a former Regional Minister on Education who had been accused of misappropriation of public funds. While the applicant had been acquit20