European Union

Europe Goes Down the Memory Hole With the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’

Nothing says "freedom" like forcing people to alter the historical record

|

DOH4 / Foter / CC BY

"He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O'Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O'Brien turned away from the wall. 'Ashes,' he said. 'Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.'"

This is the moment in Nineteen Eighty-Four when O'Brien, an agent of the Thought Police who tortures Winston Smith in Room 101, dumps into a memory hole an inconvenient news story. It's an 11-year-old newspaper cutting which confirms that three Party members who were executed for treason could not have been guilty. "It does exist!" wails Winston. "It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it." O'Brien, mere seconds after plunging the item into the memory hole, replies: "I do not remember it."

Of all the horrible things in Nineteen Eighty-Four that have come true in recent years—from rampant thought-policing to the spread of CCTV cameras—surely the memory hole, the institutionalisation of forgetting, will never make an appearance in our supposedly open, transparent young century? After all, ours is a "knowledge society," where info is power and Googling is on pretty much every human's list of favourite pastimes.

Think again. The memory hole is already here. In Europe, anyway. We might not have actual holes into which pesky facts are dropped so that they can be burnt in "enormous furnaces." But the EU-enforced "right to be forgotten" does empower individual citizens in Europe, with the connivance of Google, to behave like little O'Briens, wiping from internet search engines any fact they would rather no longer existed.

The right to be forgotten recently celebrated its first birthday. It was introduced last May, when a Spanish man went to the European Court of Justice to complain about the fact that a story about his home once having been repossessed was still showing up when his name was Googled. This was an infringement of his privacy, he claimed.

The ECJ agreed, and instituted what has come to be known as the right to be forgotten. It said citizens have a right to demand the erasure of search-engine links to stories containing "irrelevant" or "outdated" data about them. This means, weirdly, that online news reports about, for example, that Spanish man's financial travails will still exist—Europeans just won't be able to find them, at least not by using Google or any of the other main search engines.

In the year since the ECJ effectively gave us the right to say "It does not exist!" there have been tens of thousands of requests for the rewriting of history.

Google says it has received 253,617 requests, asking for the removal of 920,258 links. And it has approved more than 40 percent of them. That's more than 100,000 news stories or webpages whose links will no longer show up in search-engine results. Which means that, for Joe Average, in this hyper-online age, they effectively no longer exist. Just like the proverbial falling tree that makes no noise because no one's there to hear it, so the old news item that will never show up on your Google page makes no impact on public consciousness. It's un-news, as Orwell might have said. "Ashes. Not even identifiable ashes."

If you're wondering why Google is not only receiving requests for links-burning but is also ruling on them, it's because the ECJ ruling made search engines into the judge and juries of what may be remembered and what must be forgotten.

It's one of the scariest things about the right to be forgotten: it outsources authoritarianism to private companies. Google—which, to its credit, is not exactly over the moon about having been made overlord of memory—says it has had to hire "a number" of paralegals to deal with the tsunami of requests. To begin with, it was getting 10,000 requests a day; now it's more like a thousand. So in Europe in the 21st century we have a situation where a private firm that promised to open up the world of info and ideas to vast swathes of humanity is now in charge of shutting down bits of that world at the behest of disgruntled and embarrassed O'Briens.

Some say that, unlike Orwell's memory holes, the right to be forgotten won't, and in fact can't, be used by powerful political actors to bury awkward facts. Instead it's about helping citizens hide "irrelevant" info. But this overlooks the seriously detrimental impact that the right to be forgotten nonetheless has on people's right to know, and even on our standing as free citizens.

The 100,000 approved requests for links-removal include the following: An individual who was convicted of a serious crime five years ago, and whose conviction was later quashed on appeal, has had all links to an article mentioning his crime erased. A political activist who was stabbed at a demonstration successfully obliterated links to news reports about the stabbing. A woman whose husband was murdered decades ago has had links to news reports about the murder deleted. And on it goes. Many of the removals are of old stories about long-ago court cases or of embarrassing facts that an individual feels have become "irrelevant."

The cases listed above, and many of the 100,000 expunged story-links, share one thing in common: they are matters of historical record. They are part of history. It's a historical fact that a man was found guilty of a crime five years ago, even if his conviction was later quashed. It's a historical fact that an activist was stabbed at a protest. And we citizens must have the right to know, and to access, history—whether it's legal convictions (which are carried out in our name) or violent assaults (which are serious matters).

The right to be forgotten is held up as a citizen-friendly system that protects us from social shame. In truth, it diminishes citizenship, and freedom, through depriving us of the right to know about historical events. In a free, democratic society, the people's right to know about recorded matters should always outweigh an individual's right to be forgotten and to scrub those matters from history like O'Brien forces the forgetting of awkward news.

A private life is a very important thing. But with the right to be forgotten, we aren't talking about private matters, like what porn a person watches or what they get up into their bedroom after midnight. We're talking about public events, court rulings, historical occurrences. The redefinition of matters of public record as issues of privacy is also Orwellian: it's a doublespeak extension of the idea of "private life" to cover public matters, leading to the shrinkage of the people's right to know, to discover, to discuss.

Lucky Americans, with your First Amendment, are unlikely to see the granting of a right to be forgotten anytime soon. But you should nonetheless remain vigilant, and watch for any expansion of privacy protections at the expense of the freedom to discover history and truth.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

85 responses to “Europe Goes Down the Memory Hole With the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’

  1. !!!!!!!!!Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

    1. I ALSO WISH TO BE HAPPY IN KARACHI!

    2. Do you guys drug test? Because I’m in so long as I can keep smoking meth.

  2. It’s one of the scariest things about the right to be forgotten: it outsources authoritarianism to private companies

    And you would prefer Top Men of the state to be making these choices? How is that better?

    At least Google and Bing might be making different choices of what to forget.

    The whole thing is Orwellian, of course. Or maybe Soviet.

    1. I caught that too.
      I very much prefer the Borderlands version of dystopia (all-powerful corporations) to an Orwellian government.
      The companies would have strong incentives for their subjects NOT to be slaves, as their subjects are also their customers. It makes exactly zero business sense for someone to make a shirt, get paid for making the shirt and turn around and buy the shirt for the same amount of money. It’s the same notion as a centralized economy and no business is interested in not making money. Unless they make solar panels for government grants…

      1. Like all dystopian fantasies, it makes the assumption that everyone who wields power is amoral and corrupt.

        I won’t rule that out for private companies, Zod knows they have their share of failing upwards idiots in power, but that is all but a certainty for gubmint. Those are the people who seek out power and have no real talent or skill otherwise. All they have is their drive to dominate, charisma and guile. Gubmint and its lack of any disincentive for this kind of behavior, is the perfect incubator for their petty tyranny.

        1. EXACTLY!!!!! if someone offered me the job of president tomorrow id be like “fuck that i dont wanna deal with that nonsense”, plus I know im not up to the job of making decisions for 9 million people. Anyone who wants that job and thinks that they can do it is a delusional control freak. The biggest problem with democracy is it’s self selecting for assholes. hereditary monarchy has it’s own problems, for sure, but at least you occasionally saw a king abdicate.

    2. And you would prefer Top Men of the state to be making these choices? How is that better?

      The top men still are in charge, in effect. Google does a first pass. Anyone they reject can then appeal it to the relevant local government, who can then turn around and force Google to change their position.

      In practice, it’s making Google bear the cost of being the lowest-level court, handling the bulk of the requests, without making their decisions actually binding.

      And, of course, if they decide to purge the link, no one can appeal that.

      It’s a pretty shitty combo.

    3. yes it’s better for the top men to control it than for google to be forced into complicity

      Totalitarians always try to make people participate in the in the system

    4. And you would prefer Top Men of the state to be making these choices? How is that better?

      Outsourcing means those government Top Men ARE still making those choices.

      Ask yourself if without this law would Google et.al. have anything to do this at all?

      1. To give you an example of outsourcing in America: banks and financial institutions small and large act as an enforcement arm of the government. See SARs, AML and KYC regulations. It’s the banks duty to manage it all and the outsourcing effect is that it’s the banks own capricious call of who to report. Yet NONE of this would be done if the gov didn’t require it, for what would there be to snitch on?

        1. at least there’s some amount of competition involved in outsourcing. what they’re doing may still be evil, but maybe it’s not being done the most expensive way possible

  3. The great and terrible thing about the internet – besides all the porn – is nothing is forgotten. There is no memory hole. That posting, that article, that comment was archived. Someone did a screenshot of that tweet before you deleted it. There are plenty of other sources to find that information besides the big search engines. And there are proxy services for getting past government blocks.

    Right to be forgotten? More like right to be a farce. [mic drop]

    1. there’s always the wayback machine (i wonder if they figured out a way around that too though)

  4. What’s funny is that there’s a whole bunch of articles on Reason railing against sexual predator databases, yet alls they do is collect a bunch of what is being dubbed here as history and gather it together for people to see. If the government didn’t do it, odds are a private site would take up the slack at this point.

    I don’t endorse the EU’s position on this or any number of matters, but up until relatively recently in history there were ways for people to start anew in life that are lost. Some of that is good and some of it is bad. Just about everything we do now is recorded by someone. And many police agencies lawfully broadcast mug shots to the public over the internet to publicly shame people (I think Reason has also run stories complaining about john’s getting treated this way).

    Maybe its better that we are breeding a whole bunch of young people with arrest records and other nonsense that is almost permanently and readily accessible online. Maybe it will teach people in a generation or so not to be such uptight and judgmental assholes. On this one, I can at least understand where the EU bureaucrats are coming from, even their tactics and methods are ridiculous.

    1. Maybe its better that we are breeding a whole bunch of young people with arrest records and other nonsense that is almost permanently and readily accessible online. Maybe it will teach people in a generation or so not to be such uptight and judgmental assholes.

      or maybe it will teach people that actions have consequences. Or it will cause them to rise up and question just how many things have been criminalized. Your point of predator databases illustrates that point: it’s not the database, per se, it’s the things that get a person put into it. There is a vast gulf between molesting little girls and a 17-year old guy having consensual sex with his 15-year old girlfriend.

      1. Or relieving himself in the bushes at midnight, when it turns out that there’s a school down the road.

    2. If the government didn’t do it, odds are a private site would take up the slack at this point.

      These lists are the result of statutory crimes so it would NOT be possible if we didn’t have these laws in the first place. Furthermore, companies would need to have access to private personal info.

      Again, such a standard universal registry of certain crimes is not possible without government coercion.

  5. Why can’t we be more like Europeans?

    1. You already are, queen-lover.

      1. D’oh!

        Quebec ignores the Queen as proper.

      2. + Bohemian Rhapsody

  6. Sounds like some serious business to me man.
    http://www.Total-Anon.tk

  7. If it is “irrelevant”, then why are you bothering to ask that it be removed? The very act of seeking to have something removed demonstrates that it has at least a perceived relevance to someone.

    Irony alert: surely that embarrassing information that Mario Costeja Gonzalez, the “Spanish man” in the story, sought to have scrubbed from the internet is now even more relevant than ever, since it was the catalyst for such a sweeping policy change. Now, the name of Mario Costeja Gonzalez and at least basic facts about his financial troubles can forever be found on the internet, as long as the “right to be forgotten” is an issue.

  8. I have mixed feelings about this one. Will have to think on it.
    Don’t worry. I’ll come back and let y’all know what I decide.

    1. How about: Governments have no right to dictate this. My personal belief is that this is a single-generation problem. Everyone born after 1995 will have said something inappropriate or have embarrassing pictures on the Internet. It will be no more a gotcha than drug use has been for the last three Presidents. Also, the big data trend will die back and companies will stop maintaining all transactional and viewing data and selling it to each other.

      1. “the big data trend will die back and companies will stop maintaining all transactional and viewing data and selling it to each other”

        Why would you say that?

        1. I think big data/data mining is one of the only reasons running a search engine is at all profitable. Download something like Ghostery and check out how many companies try to follow you everywhere you go. I don’t think it’s a trend. I think it’s one of the only things holding many aspects of the internet together.

          1. There may be sites that offer to not do that but you’re going to have to pay a subscription for the most part.

            1. Duckduckgo.com claims to not track you, and I believe they also encrypt all of their traffic. But I think that’s a rarity.

      2. This isn’t a one-generation problem where everyone will have a ‘gotcha’ online and its importance thus diminishes. Rather, you now live in a small town – where your reputation will never change and control everything about your future. And since this small town is global, there is no escape. Ever.

  9. When it comes to history being taught in schools, Quebec practices the art of the memory hole sometimes conveniently overlooking facts that don’t fit the nationalist narrative.

    1. That’s the whole point of all public education. To indoctrinate.

      1. True but I’m pretty sure it’s a tad worse here because there are two features at play. A) The belief in being a ‘distinct society’ and B) an under siege mentality propelled by the sense of being threatened by a ‘sea of 350 million’ English-speaking peoples on the continent. As a result, Quebec has one of the most restrictive education laws in Canada; and possibly the continent. Alternative schools (ie Democratic schools), private schools and Homeschooling are extremely difficult to launch and when they do they government funnels them into one ‘curriculum’ to the point it’s hard to distinguish what the differences are.

        1. I know a Canadian family. Mom’s from US, son born in Canada. During the school year the Mom and son live with her mother across the border so he can go to school in the states. Dad stays in Canada. She has dual citizenship.

  10. And the govt is collecting and remembering a lot.

    Here is the almighty govt, in all its glory, capturing MORE DATA than the NSA through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. No oversight. No review by Congress. No warrants needed. No recourse. No opt-outs.

    “Literally, this agency can investigate, can enforce, and can make the judgment against any individual company or individual citizen that they say is violating the law,” Wise told Watchdog.org this week as the U.S. Senate passed a bill to scale back the NSA’s sweeping surveillance of American phone records.

    “The NSA only knows who you called and when you called them. The CFPB potentially knows where every single dollar of your money has been spent,” he said. “The CFPB can realistically know when your wife is pregnant before you do. All the NSA would know is when you called your wife last.”

    Reason has featured this, but it has been largely forgotten in the NSA debacle.

    PS. The CFPB was a proposal from Liawatha.

    1. Do they even have a justification? Like, even a bullshit one?

      1. They say it’s for consumer protection. Because we are too stupid and lazy to protect ourselves. (often true, but none of their g-d business)

      2. Did you not read the nmae of the Agency ?

        It’s for your protection citizen.

    2. “The CFPB potentially knows where every single dollar of your money has been spent,” he said.”

      With more and more grocery stores requiring loyalty cards that record purchases and pushing their adoption by pricing games, and the government takeover of health care we will one day see the two databases combined.

      Healthcare may be rationed if a bureaucrat decides you caused your own illness by unhealthy eating and grocery stores may be required to deny selling you certain types of food based upon your health profile.

      For the childrenz of course.

    3. I actually met Cordray when he was first running for the Ohio House of Representatives. I was out cutting my parents geass and he was walking around the neighborhood in the middle of summer in a suit shaking hands and canvessing. Spoke with him breifly. Pretty clear we didn’t agree on much but it was cordial enough.

      1. Grass

      2. he was walking around the neighborhood in the middle of summer in a suit shaking hands

        I already don’t like him.

        1. Our district’s unsuccessful Congress candidate last year went door to door in jeans. Conservative republican who had a libertarian bent. No chance in IL, but he endeared himself to me.

  11. While I have conflicted views on this one, one thing I’m sure of . . .

    This is not at all analogous to Orwell’s Memory Hole.

  12. Would not a search engine company require a list of data not to show on the results page?

  13. I nominate Jezebel for the Hole.

    Hey! Don’t tase me dude!

    1. I see fewer and fewer links to Jezebel. Have they derped their way into irrelevance?

  14. Your right to be forgotten ends where my memory begins.

    1. Search results on Google are precisely NOT ‘where your memory begins’. The whole point of a search engine is that you can forget anything – and then be reminded of it all when you plug in the search term again.

    2. from hate speech to PC good think to the right to be forgotten, their rights do not and at your skull

      1. Are you conflating your skull with the memory capacity of all search engine servers in the world? Because if so, then you have just stolen their name – without paying for it.

  15. The media often publishes a lot of pointless stuff that doesn’t help the public. But that’s not the government’s call. Better to risk the irresponsibility of the media than to empower government censorship.

  16. What we need is a law by which Rubio’s speeding ticket is part of the public record forever, while “Fast and Furious” only yields links to Vin Diesel movies.

    /Dems

    1. By the way, when will the media start giving us a full rundown on all the Holder scandals, now that it’s officially “old news” with the appointment of a new AG?

  17. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail ????????????? http://www.workweb40.com

  18. I firmly believe that the ability to reinvent yourself – to change – is probably the most important element of personal freedom. And there is no question in my mind that the Internet has become now a prison. You ARE now your top 20 search results on Google. That is how everyone in the world outside perhaps your family will view you – now and forevermore. You can no longer escape that. You cannot change it. Your life – your job – and any future of yours that depends on any past of yours is now Google’s property. You didn’t ask for that to happen. And it doesn’t matter one whit even if you didn’t want it to happen. It did happen and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. There is no frontier now to escape to. There is no dusty archive within which ‘history’ goes – and which requires focused effort for someone to then dig up. The entire world is now a ‘small town’ where everyone knows what you’ve done – will remember it forever – will judge you forever – and can never forgive anything because nothing can ever even be forgotten.

    Anyone who sees positives in any of this is deluded. I’m 100% certain the EU bureaucrats have not stumbled on any ‘solution’ here. But have no fucking doubt whatsoever, no one else other than you will ever be interested in any ‘solution’ here either.

    1. Bang on correct as to 100% of this.

      This article is incoherent nonsense. Typical libertarian double-think. 100% of all rules and regulations are bad because they come from a governmental entity.

      So google can just shit all over your privacy and tar you with every idiotic thing you ever did and ruin your personal and employment prospects forever. This is a good thing, then. But were google instead the “United States Department of Information Awareness” and doing the exact same thing then morons like this author would be straight to the barricades no doubt.

      1. When Google sends out armed thugs to take you away I’ll start fearing google, moron.

      2. So google can just shit all over your privacy and tar you with every idiotic thing you ever did and ruin your personal and employment prospects forever.

        Google isn’t doing any such thing; the people putting your personal info on the web are doing it. And, yeah, your employers should have a right to find out anything they can about you and base their hiring decisions on it.

    2. You ARE now your top 20 search results on Google.

      And you used to be what others said about you and wrote in your reference letters. Welcome to the real world, a world of human beings, social relations, and memory; a world in which your screw-ups may, in fact, follow you until your death, always have and always will.

      I firmly believe that the ability to reinvent yourself – to change – is probably the most important element of personal freedom.

      You can always change your name if you like. Well, in the US you can. In Europe, you’re not allowed to.

  19. I really hope that, before the last of them dies off, we’re treated to the sight of some 90+ year old former SS officer asserting “the right to be forgotten” as a defense in some Euro human rights court.

  20. The EU uses the power of the state to order Google to spend millions of dollars doing something it openly and repeatedly objects to, and which it actively tries to subvert.

    Brendan O’Neil expresses this as the “connivance of Google” and the “outsourcing of authoritarianism”.

  21. This is an interesting question. Most of what has ever been published about me has been riddled with inaccuracies. In my case it hasn’t mattered because it was a newspaper article in which I was being interviewed, as I was promoting something. It is irrelevant now, but irrelevant to the point where no one would bother to look it up, or read it if they stumbled on it.

    But, it raises the question – If for example there was an article calling me a child molester and a week later a retraction appeared saying the name was wrong and clearing me, that first article might exist forever on the net. It is a matter of public record, but it was incorrect and likely would continue to hurt me. Since the web search might not show up the second article, the retraction, do I not now have the right to demand the first incorrect article be taken down from Google? And, if Google refuses how is it not part of hurting me? Can I sue it?

    Do I own my own person? Or, are we all public persons now because of the presence of the internet?

    1. Since the web search might not show up the second article, the retraction, do I not now have the right to demand the first incorrect article be taken down from Google?

      You should take your grievance to the people who keep the original article online; Google is merely indexing public material and shouldn’t be put into a position to adjudicate between you and the people spreading lies about you.

      1. They are not ‘merely indexing material’. They are making money from it. So either they are selling what they don’t own – or they are selling what they do own. Either way, they are not some innocent bystander here. They put themselves into that position as the core element of their business model.

        1. Sites have full control over whether Google indexes them or not, so if they index a site, it’s with the site’s permission. Furthermore, Google is making money from ads, not search.

          Even if your comment wasn’t complete bullshit, it would still be irrelevant: the only effective way to stop defamation is at the source.

  22. With enough storage space, any coder could write a harvesting script to collect the sights that Google ignores. It would take some time but it will eventually follow every link to every other link and rebuild a map of the Internet. So unless the offending site is taken down, the link can be rebuilt outside the EU. Furthermore, there’s Wayback and other non-EU sources of the information forgotten by the major search engines.

    I don’t see how Internet forgetting works if there is a will to find the lost information. Google and Bing, etc., are not the only folks who can build a search engine.

  23. Given Europe’s dismal history, it’s no wonder it loves to shove historical records down the memory hole. Keep in mind that until the 80’s, European governments still employed many former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers, and since then, there have been numerous other totalitarian regimes, military dictatorships, terrorist activities, extremist sympathizers, etc.; many of the people involved in those activities later also become “respectable” members of society.

  24. It’s one of the scariest things about the right to be forgotten: it outsources authoritarianism to private companies. Google?which, to its credit, is not exactly over the moon about having been made overlord of memory?says it has had to hire “a number” of paralegals to deal with the tsunami of requests.

    So it created jobs. What’s the problem here?

  25. I’m also confused as to who does the actual ‘forgetting’. If I have a website that hosts an article, and google indexes it, then it’s searchable by google. But then google is told to de-index that article. Fine. But my site still has the article, no? If I move that article to a different URL, will it not be reindexed by Google? If it gets duplicated on a different server altogether, will it not be re-indexed?

    Europeans can’t be this dumb.

    1. Well, in principle, Google could recognize the content itself and not index it regardless of where it appears.

  26. Would you prefer “Brendan O’neill rapes children” be promoted or forgotten?

  27. The best strategy is having a common enough name.

    1. Or sharing a name (even just a Surname) with someone hugely (in) famous. A friend’s last name is Duvalier. Good luck finding her in the swamp of hits for Papa , Baby Doc, and Haiti.

  28. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.worksite90.com

  29. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netcash5.com

  30. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  31. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  32. The thing that struck me the first time I heard about this ‘right to be forgotten’ thing is, what about the other people it effects? What if the guy who did the stabbing, or the witnesses to it, or the cops who responded or anyone else potentially in the story DON’T want it to be forgotten? What if the lawyer that won that court case or the judge that presided WANT people to know about it?

    I was quoted in a newspaper article about a Ron Paul event in 2011… so can I make that disappear, and to hell with what RP wants? Or can HE make it disappear, and to hell with what I want?

    There is no winning in these situations.

  33. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  34. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  35. Perhaps someone can volunteer to send that European court case down that same memory hole. When nobody in Europe can find out about it, none of Europe’s would-be O’Briens will be tempted to make use of it again.

  36. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.worktoday7.com

  37. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.worktoday7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.