In a vote emphasizing the defense of freedom of expression, the minister set theses that act as an “vaccine” against, during the STF trial of the two extraordinary appeals that can lead to changes in article 19.
Mendonça argues to make unconstitutional remove or block users’ profiles on social networks, except when they are proven false – or when it comes to one person passing through another or an inactic or robot profile.
The blockade of social networking profiles determined the suspension of numerous accounts since the 2022 election campaign. Many of the accounts were accused of violating the Law of the Democratic Right to incite the coup d’état to reverse the outcome of the presidential election. In his vote, Mendonça stood the thesis that “the suppression of profiles characterizes the hypothesis of prior censorship.”
An order of suspension of profile – of the Boconist Blogger Allan dos Santos – is at the heart of the Minister of. Degree Licensed Eduardo Bolsonaro (-SP) has used the case to emphasize his accusation that the minister censors conservative voices in. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said that the US government is likely to impose sanctions on Moraes for alleged violations of freedom of expression.
Another thesis defended by Mendonça also aims Alexandre de Moraes. The minister, appointed by the former president, states that a court decision determining content removal must “present specific grounds” and, although part of confidential judicial proceedings, “must be accessible to the platform responsible for compliance, allowed the possibility of challenge.”
OX (formerly) protested against various lawsuits of Moraes to remove profiles and content, stating that there was no transparency about the motivation of the request for withdrawal, besides contesting the obligation of confidentiality. The platform owner determined the non-compliance with some of these orders. This and the fact that the company did not have, at the time, representative in Brazil were the justifications for blocking the platform in Brazil by Moraes in August last year.
In January, to have “secret courts that determine companies that, without fuss, overthrow things (posts)”.
In the same video, Zuckerberg stated that he would work together with President Donald Trump to react to governments around the world, and quoted Europe as a place where internet regulation allegedly was institutionalizing censorship, soon after mentioning the Latin American courts.
Right politicians complain of discrimination against conservatives, arguing that there is greater moderation of this type of content on social networks.
Another point of Mendonça’s vote addresses exactly this issue: it establishes the “procedure due” in cases of content removal without judicial order (by express legal determination or as provided for in the terms and conditions of use of the platforms). According to Mendonça, users must have access to the motivations of the removal decision and can appeal.
As expected, Mendonça defended the constitutionality of Article 19 of Marco Civil, unlike Luiz Fux and to expand the responsibility of internet platforms.
Mendonça’s theses are music for the ears of the Big Techs – the minister makes a recommendation to the Legislature and the Executive, so that the regulation under discussion in Congress.
Part of the act of digital services in force in the EU can be interpreted as regulated self -regulation – in systemic risk reports, platforms establish their obligations to mitigate these dangers, in the so -called “care of care”, and government agencies supervise compliance with this self -regulation.
