Moreover, there seems to be a bit of "this guy is obviously rich and did something bad, why should he be able to buy justice". The undertone being that he shouldn't be allowed this right.
So this comes under the "no rights for people we don't think deserve them" banner. But that's the slippery slope to no-one having rights - because once you go down the route of deciding who should and shouldn't have rights, you are well on the way to the sort of thing that happened in Germany in the 1930s and many other things.
THE LAW in this country says that his conviction is spent and he has the right (as does anyone else) to have the conviction disregarded in future (for most purposes) - this case is about whether Google is bypassing that right by prominently putting results pointing to his convictions as the first results in a search on his name.
As others have already said, that right also allows someone who made an indiscretion during their youth to get over it and then continue with a normal life. Should shoplifting as a teenager (or a myriad of other things that young people do in their immaturity) permanently bar you from future employment ? IMO quite reasonably we do not - after some time period, and doing whatever punishment the courts decide is reasonable, the issue can be put away and the person get on with a normal life.
But once you start suggesting that this should selectively apply to "people we approve of", or "people without lots of money", or any other categorisation - then off we go down the route of pastor Martin Niemöller's poem ...
Biting the hand that feeds IT
