The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), will give the vote of the resumption scheduled for this Wednesday (3) of the judgment of the.
The magistrate is expected to open a third current, with a more favorable vote to the Big Techs. Mendonça has a position of defense of freedom of expression and cares about possible excesses of the court decision.
The trial was – more time for reflection – from Mendonça, who returned the matter to the Plenary on the 26th. On Wednesday (28), the President of the Court, Minister, set the date for the return of the subject to the discussion.
To date, there are three votes from the rapporteurs of the two resources (E) and Barroso, who has asked for first sight and opened divergence. The first two are at one end, imposing more rules on companies, while Barroso presented a more moderate proposal.
The rapporteurs establish and, as a new general rule, that companies become.
Barroso, in turn, argued that Article 19, under discussion, is insufficient for the current scenario, which would require regulation, but. In cases of offenses and crimes against honor, according to him, the need for prior court decision should continue to be valid.
Mendonça should therefore have a vote closer to the current text and argue that platforms already maintain what is known as blocklist, ie the lists of malicious content, hostile or somehow negatively affect internet users.
In addition to Mendonça, we need to vote Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, Kassio Nunes Marques, Alexandre de Moraes, Edson Fachin, Cármen Lúcia and Dean Gilmar Mendes.
The Civil Marco is a 2014 law that establishes rights and duties for the use of the internet in the country. At the time, Article 19 was approved on the grounds of ensuring freedom of expression. The goal was to prevent networks from removing excessive content for fear of being held responsible.
The stretch under discussion by the Court provides that Big Techs can only be held responsible for third party publications, paying compensation, if they do not act after court decision, except cases of copyright violations and unanswered nudity images.
The climate in the Supreme is favorable to set limits on networks. However, the number of variables placed in the debate should make it difficult to build the thesis on the subject.
The dean commented on the theme on Monday (2). Gilmar Mendes said the trial “could mean at least a sketch of social media regulation.”
In a hard speech, the minister stated that maintaining the status quo perpetuates “an irresponsibility regime” that about public discourse without any democratic supervision “.
Although only three ministers have so far voted, other ministers have been comments throughout the sessions, overall with criticism of the Big Techs.
Minister Flávio Dino, for example, understands that the legal system established by the milestone will not remain in the same terms. “This for me is an arithmetic certainty,” he said during.
At the time, he indicated that he will propose some different elements from those already presented by his colleagues in plenary. In Dino’s view, today the number of publications made means that the damage produced by social networks is also larger than in 2014, when the text of the law was completed.
The arguments about the risks to freedom of expression are not, for the minister, sustainable as all sectors of economics and life are regulated.
Minister Alexandre de Moraes must also give a vote with more obligations to companies and in a sense that of Mendonça. Rapporteur of the fake news inquiry, the magistrate deals with the theme since 2019.
The minister has been dedicated to the theme also outside the Supreme Court. Amid large technology companies, he gave a speech of about 40 minutes to new students from USP Law School in February.
“They are not neutral. They are economic groups that want to dominate world economy and politics, ignoring borders, ignoring the national sovereignty of each country, ignoring legislations, to have power and profit,” he said.
