ABSTRACT
Given these changes in the information landscape and perceptions of its imperatives, how has the law correspondingly adapted to protect citizens from what are perceived to be new vectors of reputational harm? The perception among many commentators and segments of the general public is that US law does not go far enough to protect against the unique threats to reputation in the digital age. In particular, the precise judicial and policy decisions that arguably enabled the interactive web to grow as robustly and quickly as it has are now seen by many as an impediment to justice for victims of harmful speech. This chapter outlines the relatively limited adaptations in US law and contrasts them with the central European legal reform to address reputational precariousness online, the law colloquially known as the “Right to Be Forgotten.” While it concludes that a reform effort on par with the RTBF would be inconsistent with core tenets of American tort and constitutional law, exploring how the RTBF both offers additional redress as well as prompts unique concerns around freedom of expression sets the parameters for our subsequent analysis of how reputation management represents a substitute via private ordering.
