Brazil's top court forms majority to hold social media platforms accountable for users' posts
BRASILIA, June 11 (Reuters) - Brazil's Supreme Court formed a majority on Wednesday to hold social media companies accountable for the content published by users on their platforms in the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump team sends removal notices to more than half a million migrants allowed into the country under Biden program
The Department of Homeland Security started handing out termination notices to thousands of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela this week after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a decision that allows the Trump administration to end a Biden-era humanitarian parole program. Notices reviewed by CNN warned the migrants that if they do not leave voluntarily, they could face enforcement measures including detention and removal, 'without an opportunity to make personal arrangements and return to your country in an orderly manner.' The humanitarian parole program, introduced by the Biden administration, granted eligible migrants permission to enter the United States on a two-year stay. Approximately 530,000 citizens from the four countries were allowed in under the program. The Trump administration has criticized the program, claiming that it allowed 'poorly vetted' migrants into the country. But the program does require applicants to pass background checks and secure a financial sponsor to ensure they would not become a public burden. Last month, the Supreme Court granted an emergency request by the administration to halt the program, paving the way for DHS to begin rescinding protections for those living in the US under the program's terms. In a statement released Wednesday, DHS confirmed it would be revoking the work authorizations of those enrolled in the program. 'The Biden Administration lied to America,' DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 'They allowed more than half a million poorly vetted aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and their immediate family members to enter the United States through these disastrous parole programs; granted them opportunities to compete for American jobs and undercut American workers; forced career civil servants to promote the programs even when fraud was identified; and then blamed Republicans in Congress for the chaos that ensued and the crime that followed.' The Biden administration had promoted the program as a strategy to relieve pressure on the southern border, offering a legal and controlled pathway for migration from nations frequently represented in asylum claims. With the program now dismantled, immigrant advocacy groups and legal experts are bracing for a wave of legal challenges and humanitarian concerns surrounding those now facing removal. It comes as tensions around immigration are at an all-time high. In Los Angeles, in the city and Trump responded by deploying the military. Elsewhere, other anti-ICE demonstrations ignited across the country, with more planned for Saturday.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Google sues LATAM Airlines in US over Brazilian YouTube video dispute
June 12 (Reuters) - Alphabet's (GOOGL.O), opens new tab Google sued Chile-based LATAM Airlines ( opens new tab in U.S. federal court in San Jose, California on Thursday, seeking a declaration that Brazilian courts cannot force the tech giant to take down a YouTube video in the United States that accused a LATAM employee of sexually abusing a child. Google in the lawsuit, opens new tab said that LATAM was attempting to "make an end-run" around protections for free speech under the U.S. Constitution by suing in Brazil to force the video's removal worldwide. Spokespeople for LATAM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Google's allegations. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that the company has "long supported the legal principle that courts in a country have jurisdiction over content available in that country, but not over what content should be available in other countries." Right-wing social media companies Trump Media and Rumble filed a similar lawsuit in Florida in February against a Brazilian judge who had ordered them to remove the U.S.-based accounts of a leading supporter of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. A federal judge decided in the case that the companies were not required to comply with the order in the United States. According to Google's lawsuit, U.S. citizen and Florida resident Raymond Moreira posted two YouTube videos in 2018 of his 6-year-old son outlining allegations of sexual abuse that the child said he experienced from a LATAM employee while traveling as an unaccompanied minor. Moreira sued LATAM in Florida in 2020 over the alleged abuse, which led to a confidential settlement. LATAM sued Google in Brazil in 2018 seeking an order to remove the video from YouTube, which Google owns. Brazil's highest court is set to consider next week whether it has the authority to order Google to take down the video worldwide. Google asked the court in California on Thursday to declare that LATAM cannot force the tech giant to remove the video in the United States. Canada's Supreme Court upheld an order for Google to remove some search results worldwide in a separate case in 2018. A California judge halted that order's U.S. enforcement in 2017.
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
It is politicians – not regulators – who must make sense of the supreme court's gender ruling
It's almost two months now since the UK supreme court ruling on what makes a woman in the eyes of the law, which was hailed as a turning point in the battle over transgender rights. Not long enough for wounds to heal, in other words, but long enough surely to hope for a bit more clarity about what this means for everyday life: which toilets trans people can use, what this means for your local women's running club or gym, how employers can handle sensitive situations at work without outing or humiliating trans staff in front of colleagues and customers. But instead, the waters are getting muddier with every passing week. On Wednesday, Kishwer Falkner, now in the final five months of her term as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) watchdog, was grilled by the women and equalities select committee about the detailed code of practice she is due to submit to ministers next month, translating the ruling into everyday life. Since years of turning this issue into a political football haven't helped anyone, in an ideal world MPs could now leave it all in the hands of a trusted neutral arbiter, and resist the urge to meddle. Unfortunately, by the end of the hearing it was clear meddling may be urgently required. Within hours of the original supreme court ruling in April that 'woman' means 'biological woman' for the purpose of the Equality Act, and to the surprise of some lawyers, Lady Falkner had effectively pronounced inclusiveness dead. The EHRC issued interim guidance saying that trans people should stop using the toilets, changing rooms or NHS wards of their preferred gender – though for trans men who look male enough to be potentially frightening to women in female spaces, that's not straightforward – and only play on the grassroots sports teams of their birth sex. But is that really what the court intended? The former supreme court judge Jonathan Sumption has already warned of the risks of overinterpreting the ruling, arguing that he took it to confirm that single-sex services are entitled to exclude trans people, but not obliged to if they don't want to. Falkner, however, is sticking to her guns. Suppose you wanted to start a women's walking group, the Labour MP Rachel Taylor asked her, but you actively wanted to include trans women. Is that allowed? No, was the eventual answer: of course you can let your trans friend join, but then you'd be a mixed not single-sex group, and would have to also accept any man asking to join or risk getting sued. What the biological women in this group actually want – where they'd draw their own boundaries, or what feels right to them – is irrelevant on this reading, a position that may yet end up being tested in the courts. How any of this might be enforced in real life, meanwhile, seems vague at best. Asked how this imaginary walking group should check that every new member was definitely biologically female, Falkner suggested they might make a judgment on sight, but that nobody was going to be walking around with badges on policing it. Similarly on toilets, EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick told the committee that employers would need to provide facilities securing women's privacy and dignity, but that what that meant would vary locally and could be worked out 'on the basis of trust and openness and honesty'. With a large dollop of goodwill and forbearance on all sides, you can see how that might wash – except on this issue, there's vanishingly little of either to be found. The most awkward question, meanwhile, is whether a battle-scarred veteran of the culture wars such as Falkner is now sufficiently trusted to write the peace settlement. Originally appointed by Liz Truss to shake up an organisation seen by the Tories as too close to Stonewall, Falkner survived both attempted mutiny inside her organisation and vicious personal abuse from outside, as she dragged it into line with what would later end up being the supreme court's settled position: that trans women are not, in law, quite the same as biological women. She wouldn't be human if she didn't feel vindicated, and she was visibly emotional when the gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield (who has been through something similar) reminded her about the placards reading 'the only good Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] is a dead Terf' or when protesters in 2022 dumped 60 bottles of urine on her office doorstep. But the legacy of those brutal years is that, fairly or unfairly, many trans people no longer trust the EHRC to defend their rights (as it's mandated to do for all protected groups). Falkner brushed off the committee's questions about that, saying she didn't see why people 'should become so fearful' when they haven't lost any rights (technically speaking, the court merely defined what the limits of those rights were). Yet where people do and don't feel welcome in society is determined by social norms as well as rights, and the former have swung from one extreme to the other in recent years; you don't have to disagree with the supreme court's ruling to see how that could be wildly disorienting. Though Falkner suggested it would be 'wise for space to be given to the regulator' to handle this – in other words, that parliament should back off – some Labour MPs are rapidly reaching the opposite view. A law that doesn't work in real-life scenarios is a law that doesn't work, full stop. On this evidence, parliament should prepare to roll up its sleeves. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
