I wouldn't call it a technicality. It's a very difficult issue that could have far-reaching effects on technology and information systems. Currently, many media outlets and Google choose to publish and link to copious amounts of disturbing information and images regarding the Tiananmen Square protests, despite the government of the world's most populous country arguing it to be taboo. I doubt those invested in the issue think that publishing on the topic involves mere legal technicalities.

That said, the EU's right to be forgotten applies to search engines. Not to anyone else. That's why, as someone posted elsewhere, the BBC is able to publish a list of links that have been blacklisted by Google because of the ruling.

There are definitely reasons to support hiding information, but the simple act of it being hidden does not make it immoral if you bring it to light.

It is trivial to form the moral argument for the opposite argument: say I am a corporation (for instance DOW Chemical) and I have a right of personhood in my country, remove negative articles about me from the internet.

If a judge orders it Google will do it, they dont make a moral argument back to a court order(generally), and at that point you have taken critical information away from the greater public (say, that the corp is poisoning people.)

The right to be forgotten is not recognized as a universal right from the ethical perspective, either.