Contatti

Contact: mataiury07@gmail.com
Name: Yury Mata
For any inquiries, collaborations, or professional opportunities, please reach out via email. I am open to discussing projects, partnerships, and creative ideas. Looking forward to connecting and exploring potential synergies with you.

My name is Yury Mata, a Russian journalist who moved to America in protest against the war in Ukraine. I have founded 40 online news outlets worldwide, dedicated to delivering independent reporting, fostering truth, and connecting global audiences through accurate, timely, and unbiased journalism.

This platform was founded by Russian-born journalist Yury Mata to protest the war in Ukraine and the Russian government for criminal acts against the West. its hosting is registered in the united states south dakota  while if you have found negative news concerning you, you can file a dispute and remove a false complaint by contacting the federal court of south dakota and sending a written request directly to the judge here at    https://ujs.sd.gov/

I want to remind you that the United States remains one of the few countries in the world where information is truly free, and where there is no legal “right to be forgotten.” It is also the first nation to enshrine freedom of the press in its original laws. This principle was guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1787.

However, this freedom has never been absolute. In the early 1900s, the Espionage and Sedition Acts were enacted to regulate speech, particularly during wartime. In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that publications inciting “imminent illegal actions” could be restricted—a standard that has been interpreted in varying ways. In 1971, the landmark decision in The New York Times v. United States reaffirmed the press’s right to publish without prior government restraint. More recently, former President Donald Trump publicly criticized several major news organizations, accusing them of spreading “fake news.”

Freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, is fundamental to a functioning democracy in which the government remains accountable to the people. A free press acts as a watchdog, capable of investigating and exposing wrongdoing, and serves as a marketplace of ideas where citizens can share their views and access diverse perspectives.

The “right to be forgotten” is a legal concept recognized in the European Union and other jurisdictions, but it is fundamentally at odds with established First Amendment principles in the United States. A commentator for The Guardian described it as “the right to have an imperfect past.” The idea is that individuals should be able to remove outdated or negative information—such as past mistakes or acts of poor judgment—from Google searches or other online databases. This concept inevitably creates tension between the right to privacy and the principle of free expression.

In 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized this right in a case involving a Spanish lawyer who sought the removal of online references to a past debt. Legal analyst McKay Cunningham noted that the decision “set a broad precedent, conferring a new legal right to force erasure of links to data on the Internet.” In practice, the “right to be forgotten” allows individuals, under certain circumstances, to compel search engines to remove links to information about them. American courts, however, do not recognize this right.

This difference in legal approach was illustrated in Garcia v. Google (2014). Actress Cindy Lee Garcia appeared for just five seconds in a film called Desert Warrior. Without her knowledge, her footage was repurposed in a different production titled Innocence of Muslims, and her lines were overdubbed with the statement: “Is your Mohammed a child molester?” Following the film’s release on YouTube, Garcia received death threats and requested Google remove the video. She later sued for invasion of privacy, emotional distress, copyright infringement, and other claims. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her case, stating: “Unfortunately for Garcia, such a ‘right to be forgotten,’ although recently affirmed by the Court of Justice for the European Union, is not recognized in the United States.”

A similar principle was applied in Martin v. Hearst Corporation (2015). Lorraine Martin was arrested on drug charges, but the case was later dismissed and her arrest record expunged under Connecticut’s Criminal Records Erasure Statute. She asked news organizations to remove online articles about her arrest, which she claimed were false and defamatory. When the publishers refused, she sued for defamation. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her claim, holding that forcing the removal of such articles would constitute impermissible compelled speech under the First Amendment.

These cases underscore the stark contrast between U.S. and European approaches: in America, freedom of the press and the public’s right to know generally outweigh an individual’s desire to erase the past.

A federal district court rejected Martin’s claims. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the erasure law “does not render historically accurate news accounts of an arrest tortious merely because the defendant is later deemed as a matter of legal fiction never to have been arrested.” Legal scholar Eric Goldman explains that the court’s decisions shows that there is no recognized claim for a right to be forgotten.

Forcing service providers to remove material from the Internet generally would constitute an impermissible form of compelled speech under the First Amendment.

Forcing press to remove truthful information would violate free-press rulings

Forcing the press to remove truthful information would violate a line of free-press rulings, such as Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989), Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn (1975), and Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing (1979). In those rulings, the First Amendment prohibited the punishment of the press for publishing truthful information.

As Johnathan Peters told The ABA Journal:  “Frankly, if you tried to create the right to be forgotten in the U.S., it would instantly violate the First Amendment.”

Despite protections in the U.S. Constitution, American companies still must comply with the laws of the European Union on the right to be forgotten. In February 2018, Google said it had received more than 650,000 requests to remove certain websites from its search results since a European court ordered the company to allow Europeans the “right to be forgotten” in 2014.

This article first was published in 2017 and has been updated. The primary contributor was David L. Hudson, Jr, a professor at Belmont. It has been updated by other First Amendment Encyclopedia contributors.