GOOGLE links to newspaper articles about a convicted fraudster, a murderer and a butcher who threatened to circulate a video of his wife having group sex have vanished under the EU's "right to be forgotten" code.
Access to over 20 stories produced by this newspaper group has been limited after a number of individuals applied to have internet search results of themselves removed.
The spate of "takedowns" follows a European Court of Justice ruling earlier this year that upheld a complaint by Spanish lawyer Mario Costeja Gonzalez, who was unhappy internet searches of his name produced an old article about his house being put up for auction.
The court concluded that Google must delete "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" data from its search results following a request by an individual.
In practice, if an application is approved, named searches in Google will no longer produce a link to specific stories. Google does not consult publishers before links are pulled down and there is no right of appeal.
Since May, 142,000 requests to remove links to more than 490,000 web pages have been made.
Google has approved more than 20 requests relating to articles produced by the Herald & Times Group - this newspaper's owner. The majority are reports of criminal behaviour.
In 2000, The Herald reported that a man had been convicted of blackmailing his then wife into dropping her demand for an equal share of their marital home. The butcher had threatened to distribute a video of his wife having sex with another couple.
Following an application to Google, a named search no longer produces a link to the article.
A link to a 1993 article about a film producer convicted of stealing thousands of pounds from investors has also vanished. Similarly, a link to a 2002 article about a man who strangled his wife and hid her body under a bed after he started an affair has been deleted.
In the 1990s, The Herald published over a dozen articles about a pools syndicate that was cheated out of a multi-million windfall after the agent pocketed the stake money. Links to 14 separate articles on the subject have been taken down.
Other stories linked to criminal behaviour include a mother who tipped off police that her daughter had received a drugs parcel, a piece on the murder of a farmer in the 1960s, and a court log of individuals going through the criminal justice system on one day in 1996.
Two other "notices of removal" relate to articles reporting embarrassing behaviour, rather than criminal activity.
A link to a 2001 piece on members of the Rylstone and District Women's Institute stripping for charity is no longer available.
The same also applies to a piece on a former football referee who The Herald reported had lied about a decision made in a match involving Celtic.
Although Google informs publishers of successful applications, the name of the individual behind the request is not made known. Any person named in a linked article could have been responsible for applying to Google.
However, there is a loophole in the deletion process. As the court ruling applies only to EU member states, deleted links are still available on the US-based google.com.
The decisions relating to this newspaper group have nonetheless sparked a debate on whether the Google takedowns go further than "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" material.
Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship, said: "While it is understandable that victims of crime may want to remove links that appear when searching under that individual's name, the lack of clear guidance or oversight in the process means that the net for removals is cast far too widely and presents a major threat to the public's right to be informed."
Richard Walker, editor of the Sunday Herald, said: "By any fair measure, links to articles about serious criminal acts do not fall into this category. Google is interpreting the ruling in a way that is damaging free expression."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article