Rebuild the judgment on content responsibility for STF content | Method

The Federal Supreme Court (STF) will resume on Wednesday, 4 and Wednesday, and inquiry into the accountability of digital platforms for illegal content published by consumers. Minister Andr Mendonka, who sought a view in December last year, was the next vote. It is estimated that Mendonka will open up to three ministers who have already voted.

In his vote, Mendona has already suggested to follow a more protective line to freedom of expression. The minister said that if he wanted the view, he would make a difference to withdraw crimes against crimes against crimes against the dignity of private individuals and legal criticism against government agents. Conversations said the minister’s vote was widespread and would be fully read.

“Blaming someone from one another, for example, an ordinary person may be very unfair, but perhaps for a politician, because of some attitude, part of the public debate and we should be protected. I think it is not the ideal of the world, but I think democracy is also enriched for acidic and unfair criticism.”

The theme was discussed by two actions reported by Dias Tofoli and Louis Fucks. These actions question Article 19 of the Internet Civil Marco (MCI), which excludes the platforms of liability for content published by third parties. In the current regime, social networks only respond to the risks caused by posts. There are two exceptions: the spread of intimate photos without a copyright violation and consent.

As BroadcastingTo create court rules for the accountability of the State Group’s Real -Time News System, Social Networks last year

Many ministers have already expressed themselves at some point in favor of changes in the responsibility of the network. Some of them have publicly criticized Article 19. Last Monday, 2, Minister Gilmar Mendis said the trial could “sketch” for the control of the networks and Article 19 was “old”.

So far, three ministers have voted.

Tofoli vote

For Tofoli, Article 19 of MCI is unconstitutional. To compensate for the current regime, he proposes two rules. As a general rule, he argues that illegal and hazardous matters should be removed after the user notification. If they do not remove the “reasonable deadline”, the platforms are subject to the responsibility of penalties. In the meantime, the minister’s advice to extend the Article 21 of the MCI, which is already determined that the platforms will remove the content with a copyright violation and remove the content with a violation of the intimate photos without permission after the notification to the victim.

The Minister suggested that he was “especially serious” such as “especially serious”, such as terrorism, democratic rules, public health or electoral process, racism and violence against people who cause violence. Under these circumstances he listed in his vote, the platforms should act before the user notification – that is, in advance.

Fucks vote

The FUX also voted to declare Article 19 as unconstitutional, but the platforms argued that the platforms should be immediately removed from the platforms as “there is an undoubted science from illegal actions, and that it is clearly or not properly informed.”

In his vote, the minister listed “clearly illegal” contents, which must be deleted before the user notification. He apologized for hatred, crime, racism, pedophilia, violence, violence, abolition of law and rebellion.

In the case of posts such as injury, slander and defamation, platforms should also work after the victim’s notification. According to its proposal, providing effective, functional and secret means of platforms “to make this complaint.

Barrowo vote

Baroso defended changes in the current law, but his position is more connected to the claim of digital platforms than the reporter votes. In his view, Article 19 should be partially unconstitutional and in some cases, in some cases, should be against respectful crimes. Barrasso proposes that eliminating hazardous content such as defamation, injury or defamation should only be done after a court order to protect the freedom of expression.

Another distinction in the Baroso vote regarding reporters is in the case of active supervision. Tofoli and fuck platforms have argued that it works to eliminate some content with greater intensity, without provoking users or justice. Instead of this rule, Baroso proposes that platforms have careful duty and only responsible for moderate systemic failures.