Andr Mendona vote to provide large techs to respond for user content | Method

Federal Supreme Court (STF) Minister Andr Mendona voted to maintain Article 19 of the Internet Civil Marco, which excludes digital platforms to respond to the content published by users. The vote is connected to the benefits of large tech (read the description later).

The Minister has proposed a number of functions to follow the companies to ensure “integrity in the digital environment” despite considering the constitutional device. “It is impossible to blame platforms without prior legal decision when faced with opinion or idea of ​​thinking,” he said.

For the minister, platforms can respond to lawsuits only if they fail to comply with the policy functions provided by the law. Instead of removing posts, companies must identify the content writer, instead of considering them illegal. Therefore, the plaintiff should only be responsible for a claim.

“This is not meant to maintain the irresponsibility of platforms. In protecting freedom of expression, it can only prove that it is not only for cases that have violated a policy task through the protection of this accountability through a third party lecture.”

In Mendonka, in his thesis, removing or suspending consumer profile, unless they are false proven or created with an illicit goal (for example drug trafficking). For him, removing profiles outside these hypotheses “classifies the pre -censorship.”

The minister stressed that it is up to the Congress to control social networks as there is “reasonable moral disagreement” on the issue. “There is no one than those who have invested directly with democratic legitimacy to establish the rules of the use of ‘Agora’ in our time, providing limits of the use of the unique device that is really necessary for any democratic rule: guaranteed, in favor of everyone, to express themselves freely.”

Understand the vote

Minister Andre Mendonka is connected with the benefits of the vote Large techs. The Minister has proposed a number of functions to follow the companies to ensure “integrity in the digital environment” despite considering the constitutional device. Read the minister’s decisions in eight subjects:

1. Private messenger services like WhatsApp are not equal to social media. Therefore, there is no duty to monitor or control platforms in relation to these applications.

2. It is unconstitutional to remove or stop consumer profiles unless it is false.

3. All platforms, including search engines and market spaces, must identify a third party -violated user. Therefore, the person who caused the hazardous behavior must be effectively responsible by the claim.

.

5. Excluding the obvious cases that have been clearly authorized by the law, digital platforms may not be responsible for the lack of content removal for the third party, even though the judiciary qualifies.

6. Platforms may be responsible for quietly or violating policy functions provided by law, such as the isonomic app of behavior established by their terms and regulations, such as the use and adoption of digital security mechanisms, to prevent the use of illegal behavior.

7. The legal decision to determine the removal of the content must have specific reasons and is available to the platform that is responsible for its fulfillment.

8. The Minister appeals to the legislature and executives, so that by controlling networks, they adopt a model of controlled self -regulation, focusing on imposing clear and specific responsibilities from digital platforms, under the fine of their direct accountability, in the case of their direct accountability.

Mendona, the fourth minister who voted. So far, everyone has displayed different positions with each other. Among the ministers who have already voted, the two (Dias Tofoli and Louis Fucks) have argued that Article 19 is unconstitutional and that platforms must be removed from the consumer notification. The court president, Loose Roberto Barrasso, has argued that Article 19 should be prevalent in some cases to protect freedom of expression.