I don't understand this logic. Who would the EU be liable to, and for what? Who are trivially-defeated electronic DRM makers liable to?
Effectively, it is. Did people search newspaper microfiche records before deciding where to eat in the 1980s, or were old reviews effectively forgotten and private?
I mean, the pain-in-the-ass nature of old-school ways of doing things is what led to the much of the reasoning over GPS surveillance in US v. Jones: there's no doubt that it would be legal to stakeout a suspect and follow his car around 24/7, but this would be a major PITA in comparison to cheap and easy GPS surveillance. Now, Scalia's majority decision in the GPS case turned on the physical trespass involved in attaching a GPS unit to a car, but this is a distinction that many are going to be uncomfortable with when it becomes practical to use cheap satellite or drone surveillance to automatically track vehicle/personal movements without committing trespass.
I agree with this, and this would seem to make de-indexing sites no more censorship than permitting unlisted phone numbers or failing to keep an index for newspaper microfiche contents.
And who is the newspaper editor to whom concerns should be addressed when it comes to the blog post that resulted in the "right to be forgotten" decision? Does every tweet, instagram, and vine automatically become newsworthy?