Far too many questions.....
I'm not sure even the rather drastic action of simply ceasing operations in France would make any difference, after all the information is already not available (without additional effort) to people in France - simply removing Google from France would still mean the information is available outside of France - which is what France is arguing. However I have to take the attitude of others on this matter - that removing linking to the information is absurd - the information itself is what should be removed. For example - take this example -
What if someone Tweets about someone (say Ryan Giggs) doing something bad, that tweet is successfully removed from search engines worldwide. Now 5 years in the future - someone comes across the tweet on a social network - say maybe via something like Timehop. Someone posts about it on a blog which is indexed by search engines, and that information becomes public again.
Who gets sued? Does Google get sued for infringing? It's not the same information that was originally deindexed - though it is about the same information. Does the owner of the blog get sued for posting about information that is now considered taboo? Does Twitter get sued for not deleting the tweet - even though they were never asked to? Does the social network get sued for not deleting the original post which links to the information that has been delisted? Does Timehop get sued for pointing to a post that points to information that has been delisted?
How does a normal member of the public know what they are no longer allowed to post about? Maybe we need a database of all URLS that have been successfully removed from global search engines - and for handy convenience maybe the search engines could index it - so we could easily find out if something we want to post about - has been subject to deindexing.......
Does the right to be forgotten law carry any legal action for the person(s) who originally published the information? eg - is there anything legally preventing someone (bearing in mind the law doesn't require the person(s) to be informed about the request) from reposting an article that has been delisted again with a new URL? If not - is there anything stopping someone from re-publishing that information over and over and over again everytime they notice the latest copy has been delisted?
A lot of these questions are answerable by simply removing the original source - though the last points still stand. The only things by law you are (currently) forbidden from posting online or offline - are things which are proven to be libellous - regardless of how much damage - financial or otherwise the posting of that information causes -- unless an injunction, super injunction, massively overreaching hyper injunction or equivalent is involved - though I don't believe ANY of these are currently global, and only apply in the country and/or specific region in which they occur?