The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), aligned himself with the divergence opened by the minister in the case of and voted for the constitutionality of the current rules of accountability of social networks platforms.
Already the minister joined the majority, forming a score of 8 to 2 in favor of an expansion of Big Techs obligations by content published by third parties.
The plenary resumed on Wednesday (25) the trial and only the minister’s vote is missing. Although there is already a majority to expand the liability of the platforms, the Supreme Court will still have to modulate a thesis at the end of the trial, as there are disagreements among magistrates about their amplitude.
Ministers plan to meet before the plenary session on Thursday (26) to discuss the terms of the final decision. Only after the meeting will it be defined when the case will resume, if it is still on Thursday or on another date to be scheduled for the presentation of the thesis.
The Court discusses article 19 of the Civil Marco da Marco, which defines that companies should only indemnify users offended by third party posts if they fail to comply with court order to remove content.
“I understand that only by court order it is possible to restrict the content of third parties,” said Fachin.
Most ministers, however, already understood that the standard in force, sanctioned in 2014, is insufficient for the protection of constitutional rights and guarantees in the current context.
Minister Cármen Lúcia said on Wednesday understand that ministers need to define cases where companies should be higher.
“I give the interpretation according to article 19 not only in crimes against honor, but in the case of crimes against the democratic rule of law, against civil freedoms.”
For Fachin, the current rule is an incentive for the regulation of platforms to be done as best as possible, through the mediation of the judiciary, and expressing concern about the defense of freedom of expression.
“The experience that this country had in the regulation of the media has been terrible. We risk seeing reckless actions against journalists and teachers,” he said.
Fachin argued that it is necessary to give greater protection to the fundamental rights involved in the debate, including freedom of expression and privacy, but that this should not be done through the judiciary.
“The mechanisms of protection of democracy need to be found within the toolbox of democracy itself. So, hence because I see the need to have some caution when we close the concentration of power that is unambiguous from platforms and their companies,” he said.
“There is no doubt that there is a concentration that deserves concern, including legal. Therefore, my divergence regarding the medicine being employed. I believe that there is a need for structural and systemic regulation, which preferably did not see Judiciary,” said Fachin.
The minister had said in the previous sessions that would present a vote with different elements from those given so far. According to him, there are several obligations to the Big Techs present in legislation after the Civil Mark, such as the LGPD (General Data Protection Law).
“Although this position approaches the divergence, I do not add to the additional obligations either. I understand that there will be a time when the court should be leaning over each of the points brought to reach a conclusion,” he said.
By voting, Carmen also expressed concern about the preservation of freedom of expression, but stated that there are limits.
“Censorship is constitutionally prohibited, ethically, I would say even spiritually. But it cannot also allow us to be in a small tyrant agent, sovereign is Brazil, Brazilian law,” he said.
So far, besides carmen, have also positioned themselves in the STF to expand obligations to companies the ministers and (the two rapporteurs), besides ,,, and.
Before Fachin, only André Mendonça had voted to maintain the liability of the platforms.
