Minister Luis Roberto Barroso of (Supreme Federal Court) has once again stated in the Plenary that the analysis of excerpts from accountability of social networking companies does not mean that the court is legislating or promoting censorship.
“The court has a duty to apply the same criteria to all identical cases that come. And these criteria will only remain until Congress Legisle. Establishing the criteria that will governs the cases is our duty and nothing has to invasion to other powers, much less have to do with censorship. We are deciding on civil liability. It’s simple and this is the truth,” he said.
The plenary resumed the discussion about the moment a platform must be held responsible for content from third parties published on social networks. Today, companies must only pay compensation if they do not remove publications after a court decision.
The theme began to be tried in November, and had a request for a view – time for analysis – by André Mendonça in December. Until then, three votes had been given from the rapporteurs of both resources, and and the president.
At the opening of the session on Wednesday (4), Barroso said he would make clarification of the case, “to colleagues and the audience in general, so that people can understand exactly what we are deciding here, because there is a lot of misinformation about the subject here in the STF.”
According to the president, a court in Brazil has an obligation to decide on disputes presented to him.
“In Brazil, a court does not have the possibility to say that a subject is very complex, we will contradict a lot of people, or cannot say that there is no law and saw not together. The law of introduction to the rules of Brazilian law prohibits a court to refuse to decide a subject,” he said.
Still, the minister said there are issues that overcome political polarization. “If the cause depends on lies, hatred or misinformation cannot be a good cause. The integrity and pursuit of possible truth comes before ideology,” he said.
At the beginning of the trial last year.
“The court awaited for a very reasonable period the survival of legislation by the legislature and, not happening, it is time to decide this matter,” he said.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
