The Federal Supreme Court (STF) guaranteed a majority to change the Digital platform accountability regime by users posted by users. The ministers lack how this will be done.
Most magistrates understand that companies should withdraw criminal content as soon as the offended is notified, without a court order, as provided for in the current legislation.
Nonetheless, . As the discussion is in general repercussion, what is decided will be valid for all judicial instances.
Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin and Gilmar Mendes presented different views on how to blame companies and remove content. For Dino, the Attorney General’s Office would be responsible for regulation and publications would be removed only with extrajudicial orders.
“I really can’t imagine another concept of freedom than that is not the one in the Constitution. There is no freedom without responsibility in constitutional terms,” he said.
but argued that companies themselves create or indicate an entity to promote regulation.
For Gilmar, the platforms are “regulators” of online speeches, without neutrality regarding the content presented. According to him, Marco Civil still represents a “veil of irresponsibility” for social networks.
“Instead of appearing as merely neutral agents, such as communication pipes, the fact is that companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon actively interfere with the circulation of third party content. They do it through filters, blockages or mass drive of content produced by their users.”
In general, the ministers argued that it is necessary to change the current rules of liability to prevent the virtual environment from being contaminated by misinformation, violence and false news.
The court president, Luis Roberto Barroso, said he intends.
“We will have the votes of those who already want to vote and then we will suspend the trial to try to produce a possible consensus. As close as possible to consensus.”
