Housewife and teacher can change internet in Brazil – 08/04/2023 – Politics

Jair Bolsonaro was just a low-clergy deputy, and hordes of coup plotters in the federal capital could only be in a dystopian fiction scene when housewife Lourdes Paviotto Correa, from Capivari (SP), discovered that someone had created a fake profile with her name on Facebook.

Four years earlier, in 2010, WhatsApp was in its infancy, and the term fake news did not even exist, when Portuguese teacher Aliandra Vieira, from Belo Horizonte, was the target of a community on Orkut with comments from her enemies in high school.

The two are now at the center of a debate that could change the course of the internet in Brazil and create beacons for freedom of expression on the net.

This week, the STF (Federal Supreme Court) held two days of public hearings on the two issues behind the lawsuits filed by both Lourdes and Aliandra against Facebook and Google, respectively.

This is the responsibility of internet tools for content generated by users and the possibility of removal based on extrajudicial notification of content that may offend personality rights, incite hatred or spread false news.

The two topics are related to the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, more specifically Article 19, which exempts platforms from civil liability for damages caused by content posted by third parties — unless they have failed to comply with a court decision.

After the emergence of the extreme right and the use of social networks as a political tool, the article entered the crosshairs of the debate on the regulation of platforms, which some sectors have seen as timid —and the case of Lourdes and Aliandra was the pretext for the discussion .

Convened by ministers Luiz Fux and Dias Toffoli, the public hearing enabled more than 40 people to debate the issue over two days at the Federal Supreme Court.

Lourdes lawyer, Bruno Forti, 36, was one of the guests, but he chose to speak via videoconference.

“Financially, it wasn’t worth going to Brasília”, he explains.

With an office in a house in Capivari, a city of 56 thousand inhabitants in the interior of São Paulo, he calculates that he will earn R$ 400 at the end of the process, if he wins.

That’s because today Forti works with business issues, but, in 2014, he came to the story of Lourdes because of the free legal assistance agreement of the OAB (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil).

The housewife had discovered that someone had created a profile in her name on Facebook. And the fake used the page to offend her family and acquaintances in the city.

“A lot of people went to her house to collect”, recalls the defender.

On behalf of the client, Forti asked the Court to delete the profile, which occurred, and made another request that was basically what dragged the process on until now, almost ten years later: a claim for compensation for moral damages, denied at first instance and accepted in the second.

A similar request was made by teacher Aliandra Cleide Vieira, who teaches Portuguese.

In 2010, she learned from students that there was a community on the Orkut network with the name “I hate Aliandra”.

She says that the fact came to the knowledge of colleagues, management and other students — even those from another school where she taught.

Students who liked the teacher created another community to defend her, “I hate anyone who hates Aliandra”.

The situation, she says, “generated conflict between the students themselves and discomfort in everyday life within the classroom, which, on the other hand, should be a place of respect and empathy”.

Aliandra sent a notification to Google, responsible for Orkut, asking for the page to be withdrawn, but this did not happen.

The teacher then filed a lawsuit asking for removal from the community and also for compensation.

Internet platforms argue that, if they are responsible for content posted by third parties, they may end up being forced to adopt a restrictive view of moderation, banning more content for fear of having to pay a fine later.

Google cites the example of the site Reclame Aqui, which publishes consumer complaints about companies. If every firm that considers itself harmed by a comment posted there asked for the comment to be removed, the site would cease to exist.

Regarding the case of Aliandra, he points out that in different instances of the Judiciary there were also different decisions, which would show that there was a gray area there that it was up to the Justice to define.

Facebook was contacted but declined to comment.

The concern about possible self-censorship by platforms if Article 19 of the Marco Civil is modified or revoked is shared by organizations in defense of freedom of expression, such as Artigo 19.

Digital law attorney Patricia Peck disagrees.

She cites that today each platform has a deadline for removing content, a different policy and that, often, demands from the Judiciary are not met on the grounds of technical impossibility.

“There is a great risk of hurting human dignity the way it is today”, he says.

As for Aliandra, the Portuguese teacher at the center of the discussion, the question is of a practical nature.

“This repercussion [do caso] it would be very valid for users to think twice before promoting hate on social networks, which can cause pain which, perhaps, will never be cured”, he declares.

---

Understand what’s up for debate

What is the debate about the regulation of social networks?Under the impact of the coup acts of January 8, the Lula government created a proposal that obliges networks to remove content that violates the Democratic State Law, with incitement to a coup, and a fine if there is widespread non-compliance with obligations. The Executive forwarded the proposal to deputy Orlando Silva (PC do B-SP), rapporteur for PL 2630, the so-called PL for Fake News, who will discuss the text with leaders in the Chamber.

What is the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet?It is a law with rights and duties for the use of the internet in the country. Article 19 of the framework exempts platforms from liability for damages generated by third-party content, that is, they are only subject to paying compensation, for example, if they do not comply with a court order of removal. The constitutionality of article 19 is questioned in the STF.

What is the discussion about this article?The rule was passed with a view to ensuring freedom of expression. One justification is that networks would be encouraged to remove legitimate content for fear of being held accountable. On the other hand, critics say the rule discourages companies from tackling harmful content.

The government’s proposal impacts the Marco Civil?The understanding is that the project to be included in the bill of fake news makes one more exception in the Marco Civil. Today, companies are required to remove non-consensual nude images even before court orders and copyright violations. The government wants scamming content to also become an exception to the immunity granted by law, but companies would not be subject to fines if one or another violating content was found on the platform, only if there is widespread non-compliance.

How has Congress reacted to the discussion?Part of the Legislature criticizes Planalto’s proposal for believing that accountability would lead companies to censor themselves to avoid sanctions. In addition, measures such as the creation of a regulatory body for platforms and parliamentary immunity on networks are studied, a point defended by Arthur Lira, mayor.