news

Brasilia, Jun 23 (Prensa Latina) Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) resumes today the trial after the majority of its ministers voted in favor of holding social networks responsible for the illegal publications of their users.

So far, the entire court advocates for the platforms to be civilly liable before the courts for improper content, such as anti-democratic publications and against the electoral system.

Also for hate speech (racism and homophobia), incitement to crimes against the authorities and live broadcasts that induce suicide and self-harm in children and adolescents.

Justices Antonio Dias Toffoli, Luiz Fux, Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, Gilmar Mendes, Alexandre de Moraes and the president of the STF, Luís Roberto Barroso, voted in favor of the commitment of social networks.

The only dissenter was Justice André Mendonça. Justices Edson Fachin, Kassio Nunes Marques and Cármen Lúcia Antunes have yet to issue their opinions.

The court is ruling on the constitutionality of article 19 of the Civil Framework of Internet Rights, a rule that also established the duties for the use of the network of networks in the South American giant.

One of the actions discusses whether or not this section is constitutional.

Such article requires that a specific court order be issued before websites, Internet service providers and social networking applications are held liable for harmful content posted by others.

The law, which came into force in 2014, functions as a sort of Constitution for the use of the virtual scenario in Brazil, as it establishes principles, guarantees, rights and duties for users and companies.

The majority criterion in the Supreme Court is that companies such as Google, Meta and X can be held civilly liable for illegal content even without a court order, in specific cases, such as serious crimes, systemic failures and sponsored publications.

During his vote, the rapporteur of one of the cases, Dias Toffoli argued that this liability model provided for in Article 19 of the Internet Civil Rights Framework is unconstitutional because, since its enactment, it has failed to provide effective protection of fundamental rights in virtual environments.

Fux, rapporteur of the other action, also voted in favor of the partial unconstitutionality of the norm, pointing out that the provision compromises the protection of fundamental rights and the fight against disinformation.

In De Moraes' opinion, the failure of self-regulation was demonstrated by the call for anti-democratic acts on January 8, 2023, carried out openly by social networks without any intervention by the platforms.