Ovaj rad ima svrhu doprinijeti raspravi o potencijalnim opasnostima prava na zaborav za slobodu izražavanja na internetu. S tom su se svrhom koristile mjerodavne odluke nadležnih španjolskih sudova, koji su imali prilike razviti bogatu praksu primjene prava na zaborav u kontekstu pretraživača interneta. Nakon isticanja temeljnih mjerila kojima se pravo na zaborav vodilo, štete i javnosti te njezina interesa, u radu se raspravlja o odnosu tih mjerila i slobode izražavanja. Središnje mjerilo jest javnost i njezin interes za informacijom, koji su se u španjolskoj praksi tumačili pozivanjem na pravo na pristup točnoj informaciji. Iako se njime unosi specifična temporalnost slobode izražavanja u tumačenje prava na zaborav, ono u trenutačnom uređenju ne predstavlja bitnu opasnost slobodi izražavanja. Osim toga, moguću opasnost prava na zaborav općenito neutralizira njegova opravdana ograničenost na specifične internetske pretrage. This paper strives to form a part of the broader debate on the potential threats which the right to be forgotten may pose to freedom of expression on the internet. To that end, it examines the relevant case law of the Spanish courts, which have had the opportunity to develop a substantial practice in applying the right to be forgotten to search engines. The paper begins by highlighting the main guiding standards of the right to be forgotten, the notion of harm, and the interconnected ideas of the “public” and its interest. This is followed by a discussion on the relationship between these standards and freedom of expression. In this respect, it is posited that the central standard is the “public” and its interest. In Spanish law, the right to receive accurate information has had a dominant impact in providing substance to this standard. Because this is only one aspect of the more general freedom of expression, this right is more likely to favour the processing of data that occurs in a context similar to journalism. By applying it in ‘right to be forgotten’ cases, a particular temporality of freedom of expression is introduced. Consequently, the processing of personal data that can be justified by providing information in the interest of the collective existence of a political community is more likely to be immune to the right to be forgotten. Nevertheless, it is argued that the right to be forgotten does not pose a threat to freedom of expression. This is particularly so given that its impact is largely neutralised by its restricted field of application, making it effective only in relation to specific internet searches.