Google and Google, owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, expressed concern for freedom of expression after the trial of Article 19 of the Internet Civil Mark. This Thursday (26), for 8 votes to 3, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) ruled that Big Techs can be held responsible for the content published by users on the Internet.
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 12 sessions, the Supreme Court flexible this rule, expanding the responsibility of technology platforms.
Legal uncertainty
In a note sent to EstadãoMeta, a US company Mark Zuckerberg, the court’s decision raises concerns about “freedom of expression and millions of companies that use our applications to grow their business and generate jobs in Brazil”.
“Weakening Article 19 of the Internet Civil Mark has legal uncertainties and will have consequences for freedom of expression, innovation and digital economic development, significantly increasing the risk of doing business in Brazil,” said the goal spokesman.
Like the goal, Google has also expressed concern about the new understanding of the Supreme Court, claiming that it could “impact freedom of expression and the digital economy.” Big Tech also stated that it is open to dialogue and will analyze the approved thesis and the impacts of the decision on its products.
Responsibility
Continues after advertising
Over the past few months, the two companies have positioned themselves contrary to the STF trial. In December, the goal issued a note by reinforcing the concern with the possibility of Big Techs being held responsible for the contents published by its users.
“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 responsibility regime for digital platforms similar to what has been suggested so far at the STF trial,” the company said.
Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, president of the Supreme Court, said that the court preserved, to the greater extent possible, freedom of expression, “without allowing, however, that the world will fall into an abyss of incivility, legitimizing hate discourses or indiscriminately committed crimes in the network.”
Continues after advertising
Internally, judgment is considered the most important in the recent history of the Supreme Court. The ministers awaited a regulation of the networks for Congress, but lost hope since the failure of the Fake News Bill. The court decided to wait for the elections to move over to override the subject.
