“There is no Ministry of Truth”, says Silva about the Fake News PL

Federal deputy Orlando Silva (PCdoB-SP), rapporteur for PL 2630/20, known as “PL das Fake News”, denied that the government’s interest in pressing for the approval of the proposal was aimed at controlling the speech of ordinary people on the internet. . On a panel at the “Brasil de Hoje” event, promoted by the Esfera Brasil group, this Monday (15), the deputy said that the current discussion is on defining who will regulate this activity, and insisted that this actor would not have “responsibility for content”.

“Under no circumstances is it admissible for the State or the government to act on content matters. There is no ‘Ministry of Truth’ on the table, there is no possibility that any public body will be responsible for content, which will continue to be moderated by digital platforms that could indeed have their role of self-regulation”.

The current proposal for the Fake News PL includes the choice of an autonomous regulatory entity that would pressure social networks to remove content considered to be “disinformation”. This body is being classified by the opposition and by jurists as a means of censoring legitimate speech and an attempt by the State to monopolize the truth.

The debate was attended by the chief minister of the government’s Secretariat for Social Communication, Paulo Pimenta; Senator Angelo Coronel, rapporteur for PL 2630/20 in the Senate, respectively; and one of the directors of the National Data Protection Agency (ANPD), Miriam Wimmer.

The CEO of Google in Brazil, Fábio Coelho, was also invited, but did not attend the discussion “due to emergency commitments”, as the company informed Gazeta do Povo. Google and other companies have just been included in an inquiry opened by Minister Alexandre de Moraes of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) for releasing an opinion text on the risks of censorship of social network users if the Fake News PL is approved as it is .

Regulation and data protection

Panelists converged on the opinion that social media need regulation because they earn money by boosting content that may be slanderous or defamatory. “A slander or defamation in the neighborhood is one thing, covered by law. On the social network it is another”, said Angelo Coronel.

“Opinion is just opinion, but it becomes media the moment it is promoted”, said Pimenta, relating that radio and television stations that need a public concession for operation are subject to obligations and restrictions. For him, it is “unacceptable” that the internet is different.

The question of who will regulate the activity – and, incidentally, the circulation of content –, however, continued to be the point still without consensus in the discussion, in which different bodies see themselves as having attribution. Miriam Wimmer, from the ANPD, said that the “heterogeneity of platforms”, such as social and streaming networks themselves, has points in common between various entities and regulatory agencies.

“Specifically on platform regulation, after all, the PL in the current version seeks to face the challenge of platform regulation. There is great heterogeneity between the platforms, and the difficulty arises in defining how the regulation will be”, he pointed out.

Although the ANPD was created on account of the General Data Protection Law, Miriam explained that the agency is not interested in regulation, but in how account holders’ data will be treated – and they need to be transparently protected “in order to preserve people’s privacy and protect fundamental rights”.

Senator Angelo Coronel, however, did not follow the same line and proposed Anatel as an appropriate body for regulating networks and even transferring user data. “There has to be a way to provide the identity of the people who produce this content, with the collaboration of the platforms to inform us who posted it”, he said.

Paulo Pimenta, from Secom, said that “the whole world is advancing, countries with consolidated democracies, it is impossible for Brazil not to be able to make a synthesis of legislation”, saying that a large part of what is intended is inspired by rules that are already in force In other countries.

In fact, the regulations made in other countries such as Australia, for example, are much more similar to the provisional measure presented by former President Jair Bolsonaro (with control of networks, but with protective measures for freedom of expression) than the current bill presented by Orlando Silva.