The right to be forgotten has been alleged in the most diferent situations in which it is possible to think of someone s interest in having public information forgotten, or, at least, not circulated again. Included in the scope of this research are cases in which the right to be forgotten: is invoked by ex-convicts or former criminally investigated, in order to prevent the remembrance or permanence on the web of memories about crimes they committed or for which they were investigated ; is alleged by victims or relatives of victims of crimes, in order to prevent the remembrance or permanence of memories about the crimes that affected them in the past; is sustained by individuals concerning information on the internet that, although is not about criminal investigations or convictions, results in discredit for the individual; is stated by political amnestied beneficiaries of the Amnesty Law (Law number 6,683/79), regarding facts that occurred in the context of the military dictatorship. The aim is to answer: does an individual have the subjective right to prevent another person from putting back into circulation, or keeping available on the internet, information that concerns him or her and that has previously circulated lawfully? In what situations can the flow of information, on the internet and elsewhere, be contained by law, to guarantee respect for personality rights, without thereby affect unacceptablely the construction of individual and collective memory, and freedom of expression? The objective is to study whether the right to be forgotten exists as such, with a scope of protection that is different from that of other personality rights; and what criteria can be adopted to resolve practical situations in which this right is invoked and comes into conflict with freedom of expression. It was concluded that the right to be forgotten does not exist, as an autonomous right, and cases described as such can be resolved in light of traditional personality rights. Specifically, the right to be forgotten does not exist based on the General Data Protection Law (Law No. 13,709/2018). Regarding the deindexation demands directed at web search engines, it was concluded that there is a need to observe the existing regulations in articles 19 and 21 of the Law number 12,965/2014. With regard to the claims made by political amnestied, ex-convicts, those under investigation and victims of crimes that occurred in the past, it was argued that the claims to be forgotten are, in fact, based on the right to identity. This right does not, however, ensure that news about crimes that occurred in the past can be removed from circulation, because this means an unacceptable affectation of individual and public memory and history. In the case of demands in which a person claims to forget embarrassing facts that do not constitute a crime or infraction, it must be analyzed which personality rights are involved, whether or not the facts reported/portrayed are of public interest and involve, or not, public figures, in order to carry out, if applicable, the balance between freedom of expression and conflicting rights.