I wonder if Google is making a statement here about the ruling. They've been really vocal about how they are taking away "useful" (certainly in the sense of background checks) information that is in places people don't expect to be censored (like newspapers).

This will lead people to point out that they can go to the city library and look at the back issue of the newspaper and it won't be censored there. And that will lead to the question of what is, and what is not, the public record and what sort of damage to that record is tolerated in the interest of justice.