I think your emphasis on the "purpose of data" is spot on, and I agree that it's very much needed in this age of "big data" when data collected for one purpose can be easily stored, crunched, and used for completely different purposes. The U.S. sorely needs a similar guideline, if not a hard law.
But this has nothing to do with free speech in general. The two issues are orthogonal to each other. They're not "basically the same idea". It's entirely possible for a country to regulate the direct collection, use, and distribution of personal information in one way, while regulating free speech in general in another way.
My phone company's collection of my personal information has little to do with free speech, it's a contractual obligation that they incur in exchange for getting my information. It's just like when Hertz rents me a car and tells me "you can only use this car for 7 days, you can't use it to drive for Uber, and you can't sublet it to other people." Hertz can charge me a hefty fee if I use the car in a way that they disallow. Similarly, I can sue my phone company for damanges (or have the government fine them) if they use my personal information in a way that I disallow. And if the law provides standard rules on what is allowed and what is not, well, that could be convenient for all of us.
On the other hand, if someone publishes embarrassing facts about me on their website without my permission, now that's a matter of free speech, and whether or not I can tell them to delete those posts should depend on how much actual impact those pieces of information are expected to have on my life and the lives of people around me, as well as the potential impact that a system of censorship might have on the general quality of public life in the country. It's probably a good idea to let citizens hide the list of sex toys they bought. It's probably not a good idea to let the President hide the list of bribes he took.
Since these judgments are cultural, reasonable people can disagree about them. In America, flying a Nazi flag doesn't count as a harmful thing, only a disgusting thing. In Germany, due to its unique history, it's considered a very harmful thing. But I don't think this shows any disagreement "on principle". Both agree that harmful speech is not protected; even in America, you can be punished for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Different cultures simply have different ideas about what is harmful.
Again, this has nothing to do with the usual collection and use of personal information that your excellent "purpose of data" law is concerned with.
Just to make things clear, I agree that these 2 concepts are somewhat orthogonal. But in the history of law in EU, that's how one lead to the other, which was my point. It's the idea that data doesn't exist in vacuum, but is always tied to something or somebody and that the rightful owner has a say on how it's managed.
I agree that these things should be decoupled, though.
As for limits to the right to be forgotten I can't find sources right now, but I'm pretty sure that you can only invoke this right on things related to "private life" (ie not public figures).
But this has nothing to do with free speech in general. The two issues are orthogonal to each other. They're not "basically the same idea". It's entirely possible for a country to regulate the direct collection, use, and distribution of personal information in one way, while regulating free speech in general in another way.
My phone company's collection of my personal information has little to do with free speech, it's a contractual obligation that they incur in exchange for getting my information. It's just like when Hertz rents me a car and tells me "you can only use this car for 7 days, you can't use it to drive for Uber, and you can't sublet it to other people." Hertz can charge me a hefty fee if I use the car in a way that they disallow. Similarly, I can sue my phone company for damanges (or have the government fine them) if they use my personal information in a way that I disallow. And if the law provides standard rules on what is allowed and what is not, well, that could be convenient for all of us.
On the other hand, if someone publishes embarrassing facts about me on their website without my permission, now that's a matter of free speech, and whether or not I can tell them to delete those posts should depend on how much actual impact those pieces of information are expected to have on my life and the lives of people around me, as well as the potential impact that a system of censorship might have on the general quality of public life in the country. It's probably a good idea to let citizens hide the list of sex toys they bought. It's probably not a good idea to let the President hide the list of bribes he took.
Since these judgments are cultural, reasonable people can disagree about them. In America, flying a Nazi flag doesn't count as a harmful thing, only a disgusting thing. In Germany, due to its unique history, it's considered a very harmful thing. But I don't think this shows any disagreement "on principle". Both agree that harmful speech is not protected; even in America, you can be punished for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Different cultures simply have different ideas about what is harmful.
Again, this has nothing to do with the usual collection and use of personal information that your excellent "purpose of data" law is concerned with.