SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION remove the link after Google refused her request to de-index the URL, arguing the information impacted on her right to personality, information self-determination, and privacy. The Federal Constitutional Court did not object to the Higher Regional Court’s balancing of Mrs. B.’s right to the free development of her personality pursuant to Art. 7 and Art. 8 of the European Charter and Google’s freedom to conduct a business under Art. 16 of the Charter. The Court further considered the substantial amount of time that had passed, but ultimately found that the fundamental rights of third parties directly affected by the legal dispute had to be taken into account, namely the freedom of expression of the broadcaster and the public’s interest in this information pursuant to Art. 11 of the Charter. A handful of cases emerged around allegations made in the context of the worldwide #MeToo movement. For instance, a Chilean Court refused to acknowledge a “right to be forgotten” claim in that setting. In Abreu v. Google, an Appeals Court refused a de-indexation of news articles in different search engines on the allegations of sexual abuse and abuse of power made by five actresses against a television director and producer. While the applicant had been acquitted of all charges, he argued that the constant inforA handful of cases emerged mation on his case provided by the search engines violated his privacy and his “right to be forgotten”. around allegations made in Noting that the applicant did not challenge the veracthe context of the worldwide ity of the news articles and the availability of updat#MeToo movement. ed information, the Court dismissed the petition and ruled that the so-called “right to be forgotten” was not established in Chilean legislation and that the search engines were not responsible for content created by independent users. However, a Court in India ordered the removal of defamatory articles in such a context. In Khan v. Quintillion Business Media, Delhi High Court in India ordered the removal of two allegedly defamatory articles from media house, Quintillion Business Media’s web port Quint.com against Zulfiquar Khan that contained #MeToo allegations. In response, Khan filed a defamation suit against Quintillion Business Media and sought a permanent injunction to take down the original articles and to remove references to the articles from search engines. In ordering the removal of the impugned articles the Court recognized Kahn’s right to reputation and privacy as well as his “right to be forgotten” and the right to be left alone. It held that since Quint.com had been ordered to remove the claims, it would not be permissible for other news platforms/websites to republish those claims otherwise it would lead to an endless cycle of suspicion and animosity towards Khan. The case is troublesome precedent from the standpoint of freedom of expression, for it granted the “right to be forgotten” claim even before the veracity of the allegations could be tested. Cases of crimes that happened many years ago seem to reveal a certain pattern in “right to be forgotten” claims. For instance, in the S.G. v. Unione Sarda S.P.A., the Supreme Court of Italy had to review a petition made by a man who had killed his wife and served his time in prison against against a newspaper which published an article on his story, 27 years after the criminal event. He claimed that the publication violated his “right to be forgotten”. The Supreme Court 15