Re: "rights to freedom of expression and to information"
Who's falsehoods though? You have a lot of people who write differing opinions of another person/event. For example, Donald Trump and the partial government shutdown going on in the U.S. right now. Frankly, a lot of the opinions don't pass the sniff test, or are just biased in ways that are understandable, but still biased.
For example, I was reading The Guardian's website yesterday, and they had a story about the effects the shutdown is having on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its employees--95% of which are currently out of work because of the shutdown. You had the usual quotes from union officials who represent EPA employees, environmental NGO leaders/ spokespersons--all of them firmly blaming Trump for the EPA shutdown, and here is the important part, basically attributing this to Trump's cosseting of corporate polluters, pollution in general and not mentioning any part the Democrats had in the shutdown at the EPA.
Yes, I have no doubt that Donald J. Trump loses less sleep at night over the EPA being shut down than your average Democratic party congressperson. However, it is demonstrably true that those Democratic congresspersons colluded in the current EPA shutdown. The EPA would be open for business right now if Democrats in Congress had approved the spending bill in question. They chose not to over this issue of funding Trump's "border wall" with Mexico. However you feel about spending money on that wall or the EPA or any other discretionary U.S. federal government spending, it is demonstrably true that the Democrats helped facilitate the current shutdown of the EPA, and that therefore the actual fault for the EPA shutdown is shared. And while, yes, Trump is certainly in favor of deregulation that would lead to greater levels of pollution than your average Democratic congressperson would like to see, that doesn't necessarily mean that he is in favor of pollution or polluters in general.
So here you have an example of The Guardian and the various sources cited in the article using their right to expression and information to say things that are understandable and supportable in large part, but also involve omission of key facts and a certain amount of character assassination/ad hominem.
So people may feel it is necessary to post on social media about how "Marketing Hack is a terrible racist and a fascist", and that may be absolutely true, or it may be that I said something along the lines of how we need more resolute "law and order" in a neighborhood that happened to be a minority-dominated enclave and therefore my actual interest in racism and fascism is debatable, or it may be a complete fabrication by people who just don't like me for some reason and are intent on bullying me and my own right of expression. And surely this is the kind of post/data that would be included in a right-to-be-forgotten action if I wanted to pursue one.