STF: Understand judgment on social networks and Marco Civil – 05/10/2023 – Power

After the postponement of the vote on the Fake News Bill in the Chamber, the accountability of social networks for content posted by users returned to the public debate with the announcement of the date for the judgment of actions on the subject in the STF (Federal Supreme Court).

They will be appreciated by the court next Wednesday (17).

The President of the Supreme, Minister Rosa Weber, placed the cases on the agenda on the same day that Telegram provoked a reaction from the government, Congress and Public Ministry after sending a message to users of the platform distorting the PL by saying that ” Brazil is about to pass a law that will end freedom of expression”.

Part of the actions also deals with the possibility of suspension of applications such as WhatsApp as a result of non-compliance with a court decision regarding the content of messages.

Supported by the Lula government, the Fake News PL even had the urgency approved in the Chamber, but had the vote postponed due to the prospect of defeat in the plenary.

Understand what is at stake in the STF and what this changes, or not, in the discussion of the bill.

What are the cases on the STF agenda related to the internet? There are four cases scheduled for the 17th. One of them was brought by a housewife from the interior of São Paulo who is asking Facebook for compensation because of a false profile created in her name. Another is that of a teacher from Minas Gerais against Google. She was the target of offenses in a community of the extinct Orkut.

The third and fourth lawsuits deal with the possibility of interruption of messaging applications as a result of non-compliance with court decisions.

These last two cases were filed by parties, one by PR and the other by Cidadania, and already had manifestations from their respective rapporteurs, Rosa Weber and Edson Fachin. The ministers ruled out the possibility that companies would give access to the content of encrypted messages. Their trial had been suspended at the request of Minister Alexandre de Moraes.

What judgments can change on the internet? The four cases may change the interpretation of provisions of the Marco Civil da Internet, in particular Article 19. Depending on the decisions, it may increase the chance of platforms being held responsible for content published by users and of them being obliged to grant access to content of encrypted messages.

What is the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet? Sanctioned in 2014, it is the main law that regulates the internet in Brazil. It deals with issues such as privacy, freedom of expression, security and platform liability.

What does Article 19 say? Article 19 of the Marco Civil exempts platforms from civil 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 only exception is cases of non-consensual nudity images (revenge porn), in which companies can be held responsible even before a court decision, simply by notifying the user.

What do defenders of maintaining Article 19 say? They claim the device protects freedom of expression. The argument is that, if platforms could be held responsible for third-party content, they would end up excluding more publications preventively, to avoid sanctions, which would be a “private censorship”.

And what do critics of the current wording of Article 19 say? Critics of the current wording say that, by exempting platforms, it creates an open arena for the proliferation of misinformation and attacks on the rule of law. They also argue that freedom of expression has limits in the real world and, therefore, the same should happen in the virtual world.

What do these judgments have to do with the Fake News PL? The judgments target one of the focuses of the Fake News PL when dealing with the accountability of platforms and messaging services. In private conversations, members of the court already discussed that, if Congress did not approve the project, the Supreme Court would rule.

The Fake News PL, however, has a broader scope than the cases in the STF, since, in addition to content moderation, it deals with issues such as copyright and remuneration for the use of journalistic content.