Brazil court majority favors tougher social media rules
Brazil's Supreme Court reached a majority Wednesday in favor of toughening social media regulation, in a groundbreaking case for Latin America on the spread of fake news and hate speech.
The South American country's highest court is seeking to determine to what extent companies like X, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are responsible for removing illegal content, and how they can be sanctioned if they do not.
The judges' final ruling will create a precedent that will affect tens of millions of social media users in Brazil.
At issue is a clause in the country's so-called Civil Framework for the Internet -- a law in effect since 2014 that says platforms are only responsible for harm caused by a post if they ignore a judge's order to remove it.
By Wednesday, six of the court's 11 judges had ruled in favor of higher accountability, meaning sites should monitor content and remove problematic posts on their own initiative, without judicial intervention.
One judge has voted against tougher regulation, and four have yet to express an opinion.
"We must, as a court, move in the direction of freedom with responsibility and regulated freedom, which is the only true freedom," Judge Flavio Dino said during Wednesday's session, broadcast online.
Not doing so would be like "trying to open an airline without regulation in the name of the right of free movement," he added.
Google, for its part, said in a statement that changing the rules "will not contribute to ending the circulation of unwanted content on the internet."
- Coup plot -
Alexandre de Moraes, one of the court's judges, has repeatedly clashed with X owner Elon Musk and various right-wing personalities over social media posts.
The review is taking place in parallel with the Supreme Court trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro, who is alleged to have collaborated on a coup plot to remain in power after his 2022 election defeat.
Prosecutors say Bolsonaro's followers used social media to lie about the reliability of the electoral system and plot the downfall of successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Last year, Moraes blocked X for 40 days for failing to comply with a series of court orders against online disinformation.
He had previously ordered X to suspend the accounts of several Bolsonaro supporters.
Musk and other critics say Moraes is stifling free speech, and US President Donald Trump's administration is weighing sanctions against the judge, whom Bolsonaro accuses of judicial "persecution."
Lula, who emerged the victor in the tightly-fought 2022 election against Bolsonaro, is advocating for "accelerating regulation" of online platforms.
ffb/ll/dga/mlr/des/nl
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
13 minutes ago
- CBS News
Baltimore teacher says in lawsuit she was falsely accused of making social media threats
A Baltimore teacher is suing Republican delegates, members of Moms for Liberty, and a right-wing social media account for defamation of character after she was accused of making online threats. Former Baltimore County Spanish teacher Alexa Sciuto said last summer she questioned local Moms for Liberty leader Kit Hart about the meaning of the word "woke" at a conservative parenting summit, which Sciuto was protesting. Sciuto posted a video of the exchange on her TikTok. "I think it got 600,000 views on my platform," Sciuto said. After the video went viral, Sciuto posted a picture of Hart with the caption, "Officer, I swear I didn't mean to murder her," which she said was rhetorical. Lawsuit names state lawmakers, Moms for Liberty members Baltimore County Republican delegates Lauren Arikan, Robin Grammer, Ryan Nawrocki, and Kathy Szeliga wrote a letter to the superintendent of Baltimore County Public Schools saying Sciuto made a death threat to Hart and called for her to be fired. "I did not think that what I said could possibly be interpreted as a threat," Sciuto said. Sciuto resigned from Baltimore County schools in May 2024. Her lawsuit, filed in Baltimore County circuit court, states that members of Moms for Liberty have been falsely claiming she was fired. Sciuto is suing the four delegates who wrote the letter, two local leaders of Moms for Liberty, including Kit Hart, and the owner of a right-wing social media account. She's seeking damages for reputational harm, emotional distress, and loss of future earnings. "People still believe that I was fired, and I was not; they believe that I was asked to resign, and I was not. Worst of all, they think that happened because I made a criminal threat and I did not," Sciuto said. "So, to be taking action and to be speaking for myself after all of that is different and it's good and I'm ready." The defendants named in the lawsuit have yet to respond to WJZ's request for comment.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks Trump's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles
A federal judge on Thursday ruled President Trump must return control of California's National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) by Friday afternoon, prompting a lightning-fast appeal that began within minutes. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton, temporarily blocked the president from deploying thousands of guardsmen to Los Angeles, where protests over his immigration agenda have sometimes turned violent. But the judge paused his order until Friday at noon PDT, giving the administration a quick window to try to fast-track an emergency appeal. 'At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions,' wrote Breyer, who is also the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. 'He did not. 'His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,' the judge continued. 'He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.' The decision hands a major victory, at least for now, to Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) in their quest to invalidate Trump's deployment as illegal and an unconstitutional intrusion into state authority. The judge left for another day, however, whether Trump needed Newsom's consent. Newsom did not ask the judge to completely block Trump's deployment at this stage, instead urging him to immediately prevent the troops from patrolling the streets of Los Angeles. Breyer refused Newsom's Tuesday request to intervene in mere hours, instead providing the Trump administration a chance to defend themselves at a Thursday hearing before ruling. At the hearing, Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate argued that Trump was not required to seek approval from Newsom in mobilizing the guard, calling the governor 'merely a conduit.' The president does not have to call up a governor and 'invite them to Camp David' for a negotiation summit to call in the National Guard in their state, he said. 'There is one commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and when the president makes a decision, the states are subservient to the president's decision,' Shumate said. Newsom and Bonta sued Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense over the deployment of several thousand National Guard troops to Los Angeles, where protests over the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement efforts have sometimes turned violent. During a congressional hearing Thursday, Hegseth refused to commit to following court orders regarding the deployment after a Democratic congressman pressed him on the matter. He said that the U.S. should not have 'local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country.' The California officials say the deployment was unlawful. Nicholas Green, a lawyer for the state, said that the government's argument meant the president 'by fiat' could federalize the National Guard and deploy it in the streets of any civilian city in the nation. He called it an 'expansive, dangerous conception' of federal executive power. 'I view the constitution a little differently than my colleagues do,' he said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Touron' sparks outrage after walking toddler up to wild bison inside Yellowstone National Park: ‘I was shocked'
A tourist has sparked outrage after being filmed walking up to a wild bison in Yellowstone National Park and taking a small child with them. The shocking incident was captured on video, with users accusing the person of child endangerment. A woman wearing a pink hat walks alongside the toddler as they approach the enormous animal, which is grazing by the side of the road. The National Parks Service requires visitors to maintain a minimum distance of 25 yards from all wildlife, including bison, elk, and deer. The individuals reportedly had ignored the signs posted around the park and the warnings of multiple people. Jennifer Gunderson, a retired professional photographer from Northwood, Ohio, who filmed the incident, said the tourist and the child were 'close enough to spit' on the bison, adding that 'never in a million years' had she witnessed 'such stupidity.' She told The Independent that she and her husband had been having lunch at the Pebble Creek picnic area, when they heard shouting and saw a few parents with small children making their way towards a bison. 'We also shouted with the others but none of these families responded and kept getting closer,' she said. 'The people next to me were on the phone with park services so I decided to start recording in case of an incident and evidence was needed.' Gunderson and her husband are hunters, and so are familiar with the safe distances needed around larger wildlife. In addition, she said, they had planned their 20th anniversary vacation celebration for Yellowstone and had seen similar videos of tourists approaching bison. 'We have watched and followed the Tourons of Yellowstone Instagram account and shaken our heads at some of the things posted. Never in our wildest dreams would we witness it in person,' she told The Independent. 'I was shocked that people would get that close to a wild animal let alone bring small children with them.' The word 'touron' – combining tourist and moron – refers to someone who ignores the dangers around them while on vacation. According to the National Parks Service a fully grown male bison can weigh up to 2,000 pounds, while a female can weigh up to 1,000 pounds. They can be aggressive, are agile and can run up to 30 miles an hour. Though neither the tourist or the child were hurt, cases of animal attacks are common in Yellowstone. On Tuesday tourist was gored after 'a large group of visitors approached it too closely,' park officials said. The 30-year-old man, from Randolph, New Jersey, sustained minor injuries and received treatment at the scene, according to park officials.
