The Federal Supreme Court (STF) decided to transfer the judgment of the appeals presented by technology companies against the Court’s decision that increased the liability of social networks for illicit content published by users to in-person.
The analysis was scheduled to begin this Friday (29) in the virtual plenary. There is no new date yet. In in-person voting, ministers can debate the topic during the session, while in virtual voting, votes are recorded in the Court’s electronic system.
Companies such as Google and Meta, owner of Facebook, contest the Supreme Court’s understanding from June last year, when ministers considered a provision in the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet to be partially unconstitutional.
The decision now allows platforms to be held civilly liable if they fail to remove illegal content after extrajudicial notification, without the need for a prior court order.
In the motions for clarification presented to the STF, the companies claim that there are “omissions” and “obscurities” in the thesis established by the Court. Meta argues that the decision created a “new civil liability regime” for digital platforms and asks that the thesis only mention “manifestly” illicit or criminal content, to avoid the risk of censorship or undue removal.
Google claims that the wording approved by the STF may provoke divergent interpretations in lower courts and requests more objective parameters regarding in which cases responsibility falls on the platforms.
Continues after advertising
Senators consider suspending decrees on Marco Civil
The discussion takes place amidst an effort by senators to overturn measures adopted by the federal government. Last Wednesday, the 20th, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) signed decrees that amend the Marco Civil regulations to adapt them to the STF’s decision regarding the accountability of digital platforms.
The provisions establish guidelines for protecting women and combating online violence and provide for mandatory reporting channels, legal representation in Brazil and the possibility of removing criminal content without a court decision.
The Senate’s legal consultancy received a request to analyze whether the decrees exceeded the prerogatives of the federal Executive Branch. The Legislature can cancel a presidential decree if the normative act in question exceeds the so-called regulatory power.
There are at least six Legislative Decree Projects (PDLs) presented to reverse the measures. Senators Magno Malta (PL-ES) and Esperidião Amin (PP-SC) are among those who presented the requests.
In a video on Instagram, Esperidião Amin states that the decrees want to promote “institutionalized censorship” in the country.
