Government wants to identify fake news and ask for Justice action – 01/19/2023 – Power

The Lula government (PT) wants to respond in a “more forceful” way to lying information about government actions, so that the disseminators of misinformation and internet platforms are held accountable.

According to the chief minister of Secom (Secretary of Communication of the Presidency), Paulo Pimenta, fake news accusing the government of having committed “untrue criminal facts” will be forwarded to the AGU (Attorney General of the Union) and to the Ministry of Justice, so that the people who produced the misinformation are identified and accounted for it.

“We are not going to remain silent in the face of the industrial propagation of lies concerning government actions,” Pimenta told the Sheetexplaining the government’s short-term approach to combating fake news that incites acts of violence such as those on January 8.

The minister stated that the Ministry of Justice is working on what he calls the “Democracy Package” to combat the misinformation that fuels coup movements, as announced by Minister Flávio Dino.

He also said that increasing the accountability of platforms for spreading racism, homophobia, hate speech, and affronts to democracy is under discussion, and that the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet needs to be updated.

What will be the government’s reaction to the 8th?
The 8th has to be a milestone. We understand that it was an attempted coup, not against the government, but against democracy, and we believe that many people who did not vote for President Lula also took a position against what happened. So, it is an opportunity for Brazilian society to renegotiate a relationship based on respect for democracy and the Constitution.

In the legislative field, a package to defend democracy is being studied, as mentioned by the Minister of Justice, Flávio Dino. What must be addressed?
The idea is to have a proposal that makes clearer the responsibility of those who adopt certain postures. Something that will also advance in the co-responsibility of the platforms for what is published.

Will the greater accountability of platforms be in the legislation?
During the electoral period, the TSE and the STF ended up establishing some parameters, but it is not good for the country that this type of rule is adopted in an election, by an electoral court. Today there is a debate that the world is having. The European community has been discussing this matter for three years. Brazil has to be part of this discussion. There is a very fast technological change, and the updating of the legislation did not have the same speed.

The Marco Civil da Internet?
Yes, it’s a relatively recent project. [2014], but it is totally outdated close to the reality we have. I’ve gathered here many stations, representations of the commercial media, they all bring me the following question: today you have two radio stations. One that is a concession, another that is digital, both with the same reach. Both convey untrue information about the vaccine. In one of them, there is responsibility for the broadcaster and the person who conveyed this information. In the other, the legislation does not provide for any liability. Is it possible that there is such a distinguished treatment today?

Jovem Pan, broadcast on YouTube, for example, did not have to obey the isonomy in electoral coverage like TVs and radios. Are you going to address this regulatory asymmetry?
It is not possible for us to ignore that today’s platforms work almost like a normal broadcaster. There has to be a rule. From the point of view of information or the consequences it brings to society, if untrue information is conveyed or a crime is committed, what is the difference between this information reaching people through a vehicle that is a concession or that is a platform broadcast?

In the short term, how can you combat misinformation that fuels anti-democratic movements or violence?
A stronger response from the government will be needed. We are going to start responding in a more forceful, more acute way to information that distorts, is wrong, produced in such a way as to deconstruct a government action, an ordinance, legislation, an action by some public agent of the government.

In what way?
Someone, an individual, publishes fake news accusing the government of having committed a certain criminal act that did not happen. We will respond. We will forward this to the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice so that this person can be identified and respond for the information he produced.

Who is to determine that this information she posted is disinformation?
We are not talking here about political or ideological content. We are talking about objective facts. Is the Earth round or flat? What’s the question about this? Does the vaccine work or does it not work?

But regarding government policies…
I’m talking about normative acts, a law, a decree. Let’s take an example: fake news circulated saying that Lula sanctioned a law that increases reclusion aid to R$ 1,764. This is a lie, there is no such law. Let’s answer that it’s a lie and forward it to the AGU, to the MJ, so that the responsibility of whoever is inventing this can be verified.

There is no law that punishes this. What are you going to use?
Each case is different. It’s up to the MJ, the AGU, the MP. they will adopt [as medidas].

Is the MJ working on the legislation?
I don’t know how they will handle it. What we are going to do is identify what is a lie, respond and forward it. Depending on the case, if it is a crime, for the MP, if it is misinformation, for the AGU, if it is wrong information, we will take the necessary measures. We will not be silent in the face of the industrial spread of lies concerning government actions.

Nowadays, this co-responsibility only exists if there is a court order to remove content and the platform does not comply. But it often takes time for the court order to come out and for the platform to comply.
The election is a good example. The TSE created a kind of abbreviated, precautionary rite, because if a criminal and untrue publication was posted for a certain period, it would cause irreparable damage.

Perhaps there could be some level of precautionary mechanism in place until there is a definitive assessment. But this is the debate the world is having, there is no ready-made solution. Today, the big challenge is to protect freedom of expression and at the same time have some level of regulation, so as not to allow these platforms, the lack of regulation, to end up destroying democracy itself.

The Bolsonaro government used MJ to go after people who criticized the president, calling him genocidal. Do you intend to use this type of tool with whom to talk about President Lula?
No way. There is freedom to criticize the government. Rather, we want to encourage the highest level of inquiry. We want to help the work of the press, we are going to end secrecy, give access to government information, because democracy needs this.

It is different from deliberate disinformation, produced in an industrial way, on topics that concern government actions, facts, which are not opinion. I’m not talking about opinion, I’m talking about measures, ordinances. Disclose a government ordinance that was never made.

Last year, they raised publications by Mr. on social media, where Mr. calls the stabbing of President Bolsonaro a “fakeada”. Mr. Do you really think there was no stabbing?
This subject is very controversial, it has always been an element of political dispute. When we say “fake” it’s not just the fact itself, but the version created by Bolsonaro and his children. A fact that was transformed into a story that is untrue, everyone knows that it is a lie that PT or PSOL were involved, that it was something planned, that Adélio was paid by someone. The “fakeada” is not the stabbing, it is the story created around the episode.

But what about the fact that he took the stab?
That he took the stab, he took it. But from there to creating the theory of the victim who was attacked by the PT, the PSOL, who almost died and survived to save humanity is a very different story from the fact itself.

The first week of the government was marked by the revelation of the link between the Minister of Tourism, Daniela Carneiro, and the militia in Rio. Minister Rui Costa has already said that she will stay. Doesn’t it bring wear and tear for the government to keep it?
There is no fact that imputes to the minister any crime or anything that prevents her from exercising her position. The facts that have been raised so far do not alter in any way the confidence that the government has in her.

But isn’t it inconsistent for a government that has always criticized the militia to have a minister with a political link with militiamen?
If anyone has any formal accusation that the minister has any relationship with the militia, they must do so and prove it. The fact that someone took a photograph, in a campaign activity, is a very fragile argument. Different, for example, from having a bank account in which the wife and mother of militia members deposited money to pay the bills of the former president’s family.

Bolsonaro was called a militiaman by the opposition a lot because of the photos he took with militiamen…
I, Paulo Pimenta, have often said: the Bolsonaro family has its personal bills paid by organized crime in the militia. Many times I asked them to sue me because I wanted to ask for access to break the sigils and they never sued me. I had elements to link the way I linked. With regard to the minister, I am not aware of facts that could impute any level of bond.