Even if it demolishes, such as the votes of the ministers and, nor maintenance of the status quo, as the minister’s thesis. With the, gains strength in the (Supreme Court) the current that modulates Article 19 of the Civil Marco of the Internet, but does not declare all the unconstitutional law.
Dino aligned himself with the President of the Court, declaring that (for example, user denunciation of the platform channel) to make companies potentially responsible for third party content, except for crimes against honor. These would still fit the regime of article 19, with a court order requirement.
This generates relief between experts and members of civil society, because it provides responsibility after extrajudicial notification for content that is potentially offense or crime against honor, would lead to a war of complaints between candidates in election campaign, for example.
Nowadays, according to Marco Civil, companies can only be held responsible if they do not act on content after court order, with only two exceptions – not consented and violation of intellectual property. There are also cases where jurisprudence provides that violations of the Child and Adolescent Statute fit this case.
Dino’s vote is distanced from the Toffoli thesis, which generated seizure between platforms and civil society. It provided for removal even without extrajudicial notification of a series of content – which could create active monitoring by companies and.
Dino, like Barroso, does not foresee this active monitoring of content. Nor does it provide for accountability for unique or sparse (atomized) content that violates legislation. Following the European Union Digital Services Law model, platforms need to prove that they did their best to mitigate systemic risks and to deal with illicit content.
Dino lists illicit content in this case – crimes against children, induction to suicide, terrorism, incitement to violence and crimes against the democratic rule of law. But again, not for unique or sparse content. Unless there is an extrajudicial notification and the company does not act.
Where there is no agreement is about who will be the regulatory organ. Who, for example, will decide whether only some illegal atomized content have escaped from the platform’s filter, but she did what she could to mitigate the systemic risk? Or if she failed to her and can therefore be held responsible?
Dino says that, for now, until legislation is adopted to discipline the self-regulation of companies, the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) would deal with it.
Finally, the platforms would be entirely responsible for content with which they profit – as driven or sponsored – if they violate the law.
The idea comes from the assumption that once they are profitable, they had an obligation to verify before them are aired. Anonymous content – example, hired robots or false profiles – also fits this category.
With the vote on Wednesday (11), the current score is in two votes for the unconstitutionality of article 19 (Toffoli and Fux), one and two intermediates (and Dino).
In the vacuum of Congress, which, since 2020, has been analyzing several bills and has not approved any (in the face of the opposition of the big techs and the Bolsonarist bench), the Supreme is headed to modify the main law that regulates the in Brazil since 2014.
