That is exactly why this is wrong.

Search engines shouldn't be forced to create loopholes that amount to censorship. This law should be forced on site owners to remove the data as requested based on certain conditions like length of time etc.

American courts have been drawing a difference between those two things for decades, though. There are entire torts which revolve solely around this question. See: Right to Be Let Alone.

Said laws were created when newspapers and cameras become widely available, i.e. new technology sprung up which raised new and more effective ways to violate one's "privacy." What's going on here is little different: regardless of where you stand on the issue, I think we can all agree that the internet completely changes access to information, and that it is important we all come up with new rules to deal with this new technology. Fortunately, we already have some of the groundwork laid out, as courts have spent roughly a century deciding questions such as what constitutes a private vs. a public figure, how and what kind of information can be reported about the two, whether certain types of information are "newsworthy" or not, etc.

Basically, courts can generally make a clear cut case of what is a "public record," amongst other relevant matters, because they've been doing just that for longer than anyone has been alive.

You later asked "why the digital newspapers should be treated differently?" I can field an answer off the top of my head: because information stored solely in print form is likely to be forgotten after a few years, especially if it is about a private individual's actions. Previously the only way for a third party to uncover the sixteen (16) year old auction notice at issue here would be to have someone (very thoroughly) scour the archives for information on this individual, and luck into the relevant section of the relevant page of the relevant paper from way back when. That's extremely unlikely to happen, which essentially means after a few years everyone can get something of a fresh start. By contrast, simply googling the guy's name apparently brings up the article, meaning he'd otherwise be stuck with the consequences forever. New technology, new paradigm.

And to anticipate your next objection: we as a society have long determined that simply because some information is true does not mean it should permanently damage the individual. A criminal record expungement wipes out the criminal record of the offender for most purposes, because we recognize that having a criminal record hanging over your head for all eternity goes beyond merely punishing a person and instead hamstrings them for eternity. We have bankruptcy laws because we recognize that sometimes folks need a fresh start. And we have laws which require that certain information cannot be publically reported after a set number of years: for example, your home foreclosure ceases to damage your credit after seven years, because after seven years it can no longer be put on your credit report. This is so that the credit card you took out at 18 doesn't continue hurting you when you're retiring.

On a related note, the above are all further examples of how we draw distinctions in reporting accurate information. Not every criminal conviction can be expunged, because we have decided that in some cases the public's right to know outweighs the individual's right to privacy. Your credit card debt stops haunting you after seven years, but bankruptcies stay on for ten because we think that's major enough to be remembered longer.

To bring it around: I'm unfamiliar with Spain's credit reporting laws, but I will be shocked if by law their credit reporting agencies were required to drop the auction years ago, notwithstanding that any Joe Schmoe could theoretically head down to the newspaper archives and eventually luck into finding the original auction notice. In other words, the information was de facto buried after X amount of time, because the laws regulated the only practical method of discovering the information. With the advent of the internet a new, hitherto unregulated technology has come along that is upsetting the prior equilibrium, as typing a name into a browser lets you take the auction notice from Effectively Dead And Buried to Front Page Results, no hours of mucking in the archives required. Different format, different rules.

And that is the argument for why digital newspapers should be treated differently.

Quite funny that we are spending time on a site that can't delete our profile and our post if you want to leave.. You need to ask for a permaban but still all the posts are still there..

and this already is getting to the point of where it's abused.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10833894/Politician-paedophile-and-GP-claim-right-to-be-forgotten.html

If you say something in public (which the internet is) it's outright ridiculious to suggest others should be forced to clean up for your own stupidity.

What's next, are reality show stars going to demand a "right to be forgotten" on television?

If you want the right to be forgotten, just don't use the internet. Any kind of censorship isn't a good thing i don't think

This isn't targetting the websites though, it's targeting the search engines.

It's a stupid law that's been decided with little thought as to the wider implications on censorship or how effective it'd actually be in protecting an individuals privacy.

If you remove something from google, another search engine may still pick up the offending article. Alternatively, people may come across the article via normal browsing on that particular site. If you have an issue with something then you need to take it up with the actual website where they can either retract or update the article. Not a search engine which simply finds the information.

That's ignoring the issues of censorship and material that's in the public interest (remember that this case was actually something that was printed in the public news and was in the public domain).