The minister of the (Supreme Federal Court) voted on Wednesday (11) so that Big Techs can be held responsible for the criminal publication of users of their platforms.
It is the fourth vote in favor of expanding the responsibilities of social networks given in the Supreme. The Court judges the constitutionality of excerpts from. Five ministers have already voted.
And they positioned themselves by the overthrow of Article 19 of Marco Civil, which requires court order to remove content, and argued that platforms should act when notified by users or even before in some cases.
The President of the Court, Minister, diverged and argued that the rule was declared only partially unconstitutional. It is a line similar to Dino’s vote.
Already the minister. He was the first favorable to current rules and therefore more aligned with Big Techs.
The STF trial has generated debate on the regulation of digital platforms affect freedom of expression. “I can only imagine that we must, as a court, move towards freedom with responsibility and regulated freedom, which is the only true freedom,” said Dino.
“I have never seen anyone want to open an airline without regulation in the name of the right to come and go. It’s as unrained as, in my perspective,” he added.
Dino said that establishing rules for big techs does not mean restricting citizens’ rights. “Responsibility avoids barbarism, avoids tyrannies,” he said. “The idea that regulation kills freedom is absolutely false and I haven’t seen anyone in this court defending it.”
A in the current model, which should impact the content moderation of the platforms and approach it, in part, to what was being discussed within the scope, which was eventually locked.
The Internet Civil Marco is a law with rights and duties for the use of the Internet in the country, passed in 2014. It establishes rights and guarantees for digital life and the use of networks, seeking to protect privacy and user data, ensuring the inviolability and confidentiality of communications and establishing the right to digital citizenship.
Article 19, the main point of the discussion by the Court, says that the networks are only subject to pay compensation for content posted by a third party if, after a court decision ordering the withdrawal, maintain the content in the air.
Dino presented a thesis suggestion for the Supreme. In it, the minister argues that the “application provider may be liable civilly […] for damages arising from content generated by third parties “.
The minister suggests that platforms are not required to delete publications with “allegations of offenses and crimes against honor.” In these cases, it will be up to the judiciary to evaluate on a case -by -case basis, the author of the publication committed a crime – a section previously defended by Minister Barroso.
In addition to liability for third party publication, Dino also establishes which acts practiced on the platforms must be considered proper to Big Techs – and which is directly liability for platforms.
According to Dino, they are their own acts of Big Techs the “Posts of Profiles with Anonymization of the User […] that generates obstacles to liability “and” unlawfulness conveyed in paid ads and sponsored posts, or similar mechanisms “.
The Supreme also debates the concept of systemic failure of platforms, to define in which scenarios the judiciary must recognize that Big Techs did not adopt measures for their self -regulation.
Dino suggests that the systemic failure is recognized, with possible liability of the platforms, when they are held publications that promote a crime against children and adolescents; Crime of suicide and self -mutilation induction; Crime of terrorism; and apology for crimes against the Democratic Rule of Law.
“For the purposes of the civil liability provided for in this item, it is considered systemic failure, attributable to the Internet Application Provider, to stop adequate security measures against the previously listed illicit contents, constituting violation of specific prevention and precautionary duties,” added the minister.
Dino said that the criminal publication “atomized and isolated” is not configured. “However, once extrajudicial notification on unlawfulness has been received, the rule established in article 21 of Law No. 12.965/2014 (Internet Civil Mark) will be levied,” he added.
The minister also argues that digital platforms must issue self -regulation rules that necessarily contain a notification system, a process for analysis of reported content and annual transparency reports regarding extrajudicial notifications.
“The obligations mentioned in item 4 will be monitored by the Attorney General’s Office, until specific law regulating the self -regulation of internet application providers.”
The Supreme Session that discusses the Internet Civil Marco will resume on Wednesday afternoon. Ministers Edson Fachin and Gilmar Mendes should present the votes.
It is expected that the majority court to predict the liability of platforms by publication of third parties. The specific rules to be established by the Supreme should be discussed at another time.
One of the main controversy points is the possible creation of an executive body that monitors compliance with digital platforms.
Gilmar Mendes argues that a mechanism such as the National Data Protection Authority is created, responsible for applying sanctions against companies and bodies that fail to comply with the LGPD (General Data Protection Law).
Barroso is more reticent. He says that the creation of a government -related authority can be considered an affront to freedom of expression. He suggests that the agency is collegiate, with massive presence of organized civil society.
