Bill of Fake News: Opposition tries to empty text from the Chamber – 04/25/2023 – Power

Opposition deputies to the Lula government have in recent days intensified an articulation to try to change parts of the fake news bill that would give power and responsibility to big techs to act preventively against “potentially illegal content” generated by third parties.

According to the schedule of the mayor, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), the urgency, which accelerates the appreciation of the text, will be voted on this Wednesday (26).

If the urgency of the proposal is approved, it goes directly to the plenary, disregarding all opposing pressure from big techs and opposition parliamentarians in defense of the creation of a special commission to analyze the merits. Afterwards, it must return to the Senate, which had approved the original text in 2020.

The text under discussion brings together contributions from the proposal approved by the Senate and changes incorporated by the rapporteur in the Chamber, Deputy Orlando Silva (PC do B-SP).

Among the different contested points of the proposal, the deputies specifically cite the article that appears in the last substitute of the rapporteur.

This point establishes that providers act preventively in the face of “potentially illegal content generated by third parties within the scope of their services, having a general duty to act diligently and in a timely manner when notified”.

The preliminary text cites some cases, such as crimes of violent abolition of the democratic rule of law and coup d’état, acts of terrorism, crime of inducing, instigating or assisting suicide or self-mutilation, crimes against children and adolescents and incitement to violence against them, crimes discrimination or prejudice and gender violence.

Parliamentarians view the device with caution. “Not only does it outsource, it obliges the platforms to act with police power, having to identify and frame potentially criminal conduct, something that should be done by the justice bodies”, says deputy Gilson Marques (Novo-SC).

He also questions what constitutes a potentially criminal act. “Are we going to punish the platforms, if the State has a different understanding?”, he continues. “Under the aura of good manners, this project destroys freedom of expression in the country.”

Marques’ party colleague, deputy Adriana Ventura (SP) raises doubts about the definition of potentially illegal content.

“This project presents very worrying points. The worst of them is that the providers must decide what is potentially illegal content and remove it. They won’t even know how to do that, because they would have to act as judges”, he says. “This is unprecedentedly absurd.”

People involved in the writing of the text, heard on condition of anonymity, admit that this is one of the sensitive points of the project, precisely because it gives platforms the power to monitor the content disclosed.

On the other hand, they understand that the device, imported from European legislation and called “duty of care”, creates conditions for anticipating movements that may go under the radar of the authorities —for example, what happened with the first attacks on schools in the country.

Thus, the idea is to combine it, at the same time, with transparency and inspection mechanisms, to ensure that companies do not act as judges. In this way, they say, the law would balance. This section, a suggestion by the government, should have the support of grassroots parliamentarians.

For deputy Kim Kataguiri (União Brasil-SP), the content of the proposal raises fears of mass private censorship by the networks due to preventive responsibility. “It also runs over the debate of a necessary special commission, given that the issue was not debated in the current legislature.”

An ally of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL), deputy Bibo Nunes (PL-RS) argues that the text be forwarded to a committee for analysis of the merits. He also contests what would be the timeframe for removing the content.

Parliamentarians from the current government base, however, argue that the matter has been debated for years in the Chamber and that, in light of recent episodes such as the coup acts of January 8 and the attacks on schools, there is an urgent need for speed in the procedure.

In addition, they defend a high periodicity in the revision of the text, precisely to prevent it from being out of step with reality.

One of the main foci of resistance is the Digital Front. In published material, they cite nine points that would justify sending the project to a special commission, including the alleged outsourcing of police power to the platforms.

“What is potentially illegal content? What is the time limit? What is diligently? Will it be up to the platforms to define which conduct falls under the criminal categories?”, the material questions.

The document also talks about another device, which gives the Executive the prerogative to establish an entity to regulate the law, supervise and apply sanctions and cites the requirement for standardization of responses by platforms in the face of systemic risks.

“The text does not define what systemic risks are, making platforms responsible in case of non-compliance”, indicates the material, which raises doubts about “how it will be possible to analyze, manage and establish measures of a systemic risk without knowing what risk it is”.

Another point criticized is the one that addresses the charge for journalistic content, which, says the Front, will reduce the volume of news circulating on the internet. “Who will define what journalism is? Is there a risk that platforms will have to remunerate portals that spread fake news?”