‎Brazil News

 

Two appeals are analyzed jointly by the Court.

 

 

Thursday, November 28, 2024

 

Updated at 14:22

 

This Thursday, the 28th, the STF, in a plenary session, will once again judge whether internet providers can be held liable for not removing third-party content even without a court order. The article 19 of  law 12.965/14  - known as the Internet Civil Rights Framework - will be analyzed.

 

Amici curiae who were unable to speak at the session on Wednesday, the 27th, will be heard and ministers will cast their votes.

 

Read more

STF rules on content removal by networks regardless of court order

 

The device establishes that, in order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship,  the internet application provider may only be held civilly liable for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after a specific court order, it fails to take steps to, within the scope and technical limits of its service and within the specified period, make unavailable the content identified as infringing, except for legal provisions to the contrary .

 

Follow:

 

 

 

Fake profile

 

In RE 1,037,396 ( theme  987 ) , reported by Justice Dias Toffoli, a woman  filed  a lawsuit in the São Paulo courts after discovering, through relatives, a fake Facebook profile that used her name and photos to offend third parties. Claiming that her life "had become hell", she requested the deletion of the profile and compensation for moral damages.   

 

The JEC of Capivari/SP ordered the deletion of the profile and the provision of the IP, but denied the claim for compensation, based on art. 19 of the Internet Civil Rights Framework. The provision limits the civil liability of providers to situations in which, after a court order, they do not remove the infringing content.  

 

The author appealed. The appeal panel determined compensation of R$10,000, arguing that requiring a specific court order to remove fake profiles disregards the CDC and the CF, which provide for the duty to compensate.  

 

In the Supreme Federal Court, Facebook is challenging the decision, defending the constitutionality of Article 19. The company argues that the rule preserves freedom of expression and prevents censorship, highlighting that removing content without judicial review would transfer to private companies the power to limit public communication, in violation of the Federal Constitution and the civil framework.

 

User Content

 

In RE 1,057,258 (theme  533 ), reported by Justice Luiz Fux, the STF analyzes the liability of providers of applications and internet tools for content generated by users. It also addresses the possibility of removing content that may violate personality rights, incite hatred or spread fake news through extrajudicial notification. 

 

In this case, Google appealed a ruling by the 1st Civil Appeals Court of the Belo Horizonte/MG Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction holding the social network Orkut liable for removing the page entitled  I hate Liandra, in addition to determining the payment of R$10,000 for moral damages. Even after being notified, Google refused to remove the page that contained insults to the victim.

 

Proceedings :  RE 1,037,396 ,  RE 1,057,258 

 

link: https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/420652/ao-vivo-stf-julga-remocao-de-conteudo-por-redes-sem-ordem-judicial