By 8 votes to 3, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) ruled on Thursday, 26 ,. Google and Google, owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp expressed concern for freedom of expression after the judgment of Article 19 of the Internet Civil Mark.
The article states that platforms can only be held responsible for content published by third parties if they do not remove the material after court order. After twelve sessions, the STF flexed this rule, expanding the responsibility of technology platforms.
For the American company Mark Zuckerberg, the decision raises concerns about “freedom of expression and millions of companies that use our applications to grow their business and generate jobs in Brazil,” the company says in a note sent to Estadão.
Continues after advertising
“Weakening Article 19 of the Internet Civil Marco brings legal uncertainties and will have consequences for freedom of expression, innovation and digital economic development, significantly increasing the risk of doing business in Brazil,” says the spokesman Meta.
Like the goal, Google has also expressed its concern for the new understanding of the Supreme Court, claiming that it could “impact freedom of expression and the digital economy.” Big Tech also states that it is open to dialogue and will analyze the approved thesis and the impacts of the decision on its products.
Over the past few months, the two companies have positioned themselves contrary to the STF trial. In December of the last year, the goal issued a note reinforcing the concern with the possibility of Big Techs being held responsible for the contents published by its users.
Continues after advertising
“We have a long history of dialogue and collaboration with the authorities in Brazil, including the judiciary. But no great democracy in the world has never tried to implement a regime of responsibility for digital platforms similar to what has been suggested so far at the STF trial,” says the company.
Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, president of the Supreme Court, argued that the Supreme preserved, to the greater extent possible, freedom of expression, “without allowing the world to fall into an abyss of incivility, legitimizing hate discourses or indiscriminately committed crimes in the network.”
Internally, judgment is considered the most important in the recent history of the Supreme. The ministers awaited a regulation of the networks for Congress, but lost hope since the failure of the PL of Fake News. The court decided to wait for the elections to move over to override the subject.
Continues after advertising
After twelve sessions, the ministers established the criteria to punish platforms for fault in content moderation and appealed to the regulatory congress.
“The court has waited, and for a few years, that there was the legislative procedure of the National Congress, but we do not have the faculty of failing to judge any question for the indefinite absence of law,” Barroso justified by announcing the decision.
It has been defined, as a general rule, that companies are responsible for crimes or illicit acts and false accounts if they do not remove this content after private (extrajudicial) notification.
Continues after advertising
With the decision, the responsibility of these companies for illegal publications begins from the moment they are notified by the users themselves and not from the moment they fail to comply with judicial decisions to remove the contents, as provided for in Article 19 of the Internet Civil Mark.
