Brazil's court to make social media firms legally accountable for user posts
The majority of justices on Brazil's Supreme Court have agreed to make social media companies liable for illegal postings by their users, in a landmark case for Latin America with implications for U.S. relations.Brazil's top court decided to rule on two different cases to reach an understanding of how to deal with social media companies as reports of fraud, child pornography and violence amongst teenagers become rampant online. Critics warn such measures could threaten free speech as platforms preemptively remove content that could be problematic.advertisementGilmar Mendes on Wednesday became the sixth of the court's 11 justices to vote to open a path for companies like Meta, X and Microsoft to be sued and pay fines for content published by their users. Voting is ongoing, but a simple majority is all that is needed for the measure to pass.
The ruling will come after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of possible visa restrictions against foreign officials allegedly involved in censoring American citizens. One such official is reportedly Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has taken measures against social media outlets he deemed to have not complied with Brazilian law.The only dissenting Brazilian justice so far is Andr Mendona and his vote was made public last week. The court is yet to decide how such regulations will be enacted.advertisementMendona said free speech on social media is key for the publication of information that 'holds powerful public institutions to account, including governments, political elites and digital platforms.'Justice Flvio Dino, the first to vote on Wednesday, reminded his colleagues that recent cases of school shootings in Brazil were created on social media. He read out postings by one user who said he was happy by watching families of dead children 'weeping, bleeding, dying.''I think social media have not made humanity closer to what it has produced in best fashion,' he said.The social media proposal would become law once voting is finished and the result is published. But Brazil's Congress could still pass another law to reverse the measure.The current legislation states that social media companies can only be held responsible if they do not remove hazardous content after a court order.Public debate on regulating social networks increased in Brazil in the aftermath of the Jan. 8 riot in 2023, when supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro ransacked Congress, the presidential palace and the Supreme Court in the capital, Braslia.Platforms need to be proactive in regulating content, said Alvaro Palma de Jorge, a law professor at the Rio-based Getulio Vargas Foundation, a think tank and university.advertisement'They need to adopt certain precautions that are not compatible with simply waiting for a judge to eventually issue a decision ordering the removal of that content,' Palma de Jorge said.Wednesday's ruling brings Brazil's approach to big tech closer to the European Union's approach, which has sought to rein in the power of social media companies and other digital platforms.Rendering platforms automatically accountable for content on their platforms may infringe freedom of speech as they could resort to preemptively removing content, according to the Sao-Paulo based Brazilian Chamber of Digital Economy, an organization that represents sectors of the digital economy.'This type of liability favors large companies with robust legal structures, to the detriment of smaller, national players, which negatively impacts competition,' said the organization, adding that the decision may increase barriers to innovation.Must Watch
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: In-house inquiry is not immunity
The discovery of burnt currency at the residence of a sitting judge on the night of March 14 has caused cracks in the faith that the public has in the judiciary, the integrity of institutions and the perception of justice in a democratic society. Certain efforts appear to have been made to heal the injury caused by this incident by initiating an in-house inquiry. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) quite diligently constituted a panel of three senior judges. The committee has given its report to the Chief Justice, who has submitted it to the President of India. It is reported that on the basis of the findings arrived at by the panel of judges, the CJI has recommended the removal of the judge through impeachment. On June 10, an Independent member of the Rajya Sabha and former law minister, Kapil Sibal, claimed that any motion to impeach the judge on the basis of the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry would be unconstitutional. Sibal's view is well-founded. The in-house committee has conducted the procedure to satisfy the need for a regular inquiry under The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Act stipulates the procedure for an investigation by a committee into allegations of misbehaviour by — or incapacity of — a judge. A House or both Houses of Parliament can take up a motion of impeachment only after such an inquiry. The inquiry under the 1968 Act is, however, not relevant for assigning criminal liability if the proven misbehaviour also falls within the definition of a crime. In this case, no FIR has been registered so far. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, while addressing the Times Now Summit 2025, stated that without the permission of the Chief Justice of India, in the matter relating to the discovery of burnt currency notes from the residence of the judge, no FIR can be registered — nothing can be seized in the absence of an FIR. In light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K Veeraswami v Union of India (1991), sitting judges of high courts and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution, including the registration of an FIR, without prior consultation with the CJI. This is necessary to protect the judges from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment. The CJI must assess the veracity of the allegations against a sitting judge, to advise the President on the need for an FIR. The in-house inquiry is essentially meant for this purpose. By no stretch of the imagination can the law laid down in Veeraswami be a tool to protect a judge from criminal liability. Our criminal law is competent enough to take necessary care of every eventuality. The discovery of the burnt money from the house of a sitting judge potentially constitutes several offences under various laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Income Tax Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The offences under all the above enactments are serious and mostly cognisable. With respect to the March 14 incident, according to media reports, the firefighters first informed the police, including the Delhi Police commissioner. The police team reached the spot, and upon arrival, some photographs were taken and a video was recorded. However, the police did not register any case despite being under the obligation to do so under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This could have been done without naming the judge and without including him in the list of the accused. According to Section 173 of the BNSS, the police, on reaching the scene of the crime, should have secured the area to prevent tampering, destruction or contamination of evidence. As per Section 175, the officer conducting the investigation should have recorded observations regarding the physical evidence available and also drawn a site plan or sketch with photographs and videos. Under Section 176 of the BNSS, the police officers should also have collected physical and digital evidence and should have preserved the same for the use of forensic experts. The police had the duty to protect the crime scene and preserve evidence to ensure a fair trial, as and when that takes place. Adherence to this procedure is fundamental to our criminal jurisprudence and to maintaining public confidence in our justice system. In this case, though certain photographs were taken and a video was recorded, no further care appears to have been taken to protect the scene of the crime and the relevant evidence. The burnt currency wasn't seized immediately and debris was reportedly removed by unknown persons. These are serious breaches. The registration of a case was necessary for an effective investigation. The law laid down in Veeraswami and other Supreme Court guidelines do not restrict the police from taking these necessary measures and registering a criminal case. The failure of the police to take all these measures has caused significant damage to the investigation. It is also strange that no criminal case has been registered even after the submission of a report by a panel of judges holding the judge concerned guilty. The writer is former Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court
Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Justice Yashwant Varma case: Peer review is the proper channel
Arghya Sengupta begins his book Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary by juxtaposing the views of Jawaharlal Nehru and Justice Y K Sabharwal. Nehru upheld Parliament's supremacy, arguing that the judiciary could advise but not obstruct the legislative will in shaping the nation's future. In contrast, Justice Sabharwal underscored the judiciary's expanding role in securing good governance, highlighting how the Supreme Court has intervened in areas like environmental protection, electoral reform, and constitutional amendments to ensure the rule of law prevails. This tension reflects a fundamental shift. The recent disclosure of cash recovered from the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma has triggered a flurry of reactions: Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns about the absence of punitive outcomes following an internal inquiry and cast doubts on the legal sanctity of in-house procedures. Following intervention from the Rajya Sabha, the SC dropped its inquiry into the alleged hate speech made by Justice Shekhar Yadav, sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, citing that the final authority lies with Parliament and the President. These instances beg the question: Who judges the judges? The judiciary forms one of the three pillars of a democracy and derives its authority from the Constitution. The outdated notion of legislative supremacy has now been replaced: The Supreme Court in Keshav Singh vs Speaker, Legislative Assembly (1965) and People's Union For Civil Liberties vs Union of India (2005) recognised that the Constitution is supreme. The Constitution provides strong safeguards for judicial independence, including security of tenure, fixed salaries charged to the Consolidated Fund, protection from discussion in legislatures, and immunity under laws like the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Provisions for the removal of high court and SC judges by Parliament on grounds of 'proven misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' under Articles 124 and 217 create an accountability mechanism. Under Article 124(5), Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the procedures to investigate judicial misconduct. Further, on May 7, 1997, the SC's Full Court adopted the 'Restatement of Values of Judicial Life'. It authorises the Chief Justice to constitute an in-house committee to investigate allegations against judges of the higher judiciary. This was recognised in C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995). The VP, in one of his latest speeches, spoke of the need to revisit K Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) in light of the controversy around Justice Varma's case. However, such arguments overlook the constitutional and legal procedures provided for investigating allegations against judges. The Constitution does not permit ad-hoc procedures in matters involving the higher judiciary. Even prior to the Constitution's enactment, the Government of India Act, 1935, provided for a judicial disciplinary committee comprising judges. After Independence, when then-MP Meghnad Saha complained against a judge, Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar refrained from immediate action. He sought the opinion of the CJI before proceeding. While drafting the Judges Inquiry Bill, 1964 under Article 124(5), eminent legal figures like C K Daphtary and G S Pathak emphasised that complaints against judges should originate from MPs, not the executive, and be submitted to the Speaker or Chairman. If accepted, a three-member judicial committee would investigate the charges. Only if the committee finds the judge guilty may Parliament initiate a debate; otherwise, the motion is dropped. This framework was upheld in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1991), wherein the Court highlighted practices from countries like the US, Canada, and Australia, where initial investigations are conducted by a judicial body, with legislative involvement occurring later. In Veeraswami, the Court held that judges can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but only with presidential sanction after consultation with the CJI. This ensures accountability and judicial independence. In Justice Varma's case, any investigation must be initiated through a motion in Parliament, followed by a judicial inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. As the Court held in the Sub-Committee case, such inquiries are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be replaced by political or administrative processes without violating constitutional safeguards. Harry T Edwards, Chief Justice of Appeals for the District of Columbia, noted in a 1989 paper that 'the ideal of judicial independence is not compromised when judges are monitored and are regulated by their own peers'. The Supreme Court in A M Bhattacharjee noted that 'peer review' is in the best interest of judicial independence and in consonance with international practices. The Law Commission of India in its 195th Report recommended the Judicial (Inquiry) Bill 2005, establishing the National Judicial Council, which was to consist of five judges, with the CJI as chairman. The Commission noted that this practice of inquiry finds its roots in various international principles like the Siracusa Principles (1981) and the Latimer guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998). The judiciary, like any other institution, must be held accountable. But that accountability must be enforced within a constitutionally protected framework that ensures independence from political pressures. The rule of law demands not just that justice be done — but that it be done through proper channels, and equally for all. The writer is assistant professor, Jindal Global Law School
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Mithi fraud: ED questions Dino Morea, investigating if he's linked to crime proceeds
MUMBAI: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday questioned actor Dino Morea for a few hours as part of its money-laundering investigation related to the alleged irregularities in contracts to desilt the Mithi River, which caused a loss of over ₹65 crore to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). The Mumbai unit of the central agency is investigating whether Morea and his brother Santino were involved in the alleged fraud or if they were linked to any part of the proceeds of crime generated by people and entities being probed in the case, officials said. The Morea brothers have denied all allegations related to their involvement in the case. The ED is likely to question more people linked to the case in the next two weeks, officials said. Morea was at the ED's office at Ballard Estate in south Mumbai for over three-and-a-half hours after arriving around 10.30 am on Thursday. The agency recorded his statement under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), officials said. The actor was questioned about the ED's suspicions regarding his alleged role in the fraud, which he has denied. The agency is verifying whether he is connected to any of the proceeds of crime, officials said, adding that the verification is still in a preliminary stage. Morea was summoned days after the ED carried out searches at 18 locations across Mumbai, Kochi and Thrissur on June 6 in connection with the investigation. The locations searched included the residential/office premises of Dino and Santino Morea, BMC engineer Prashant Ramgude, civic contractor Bhupendra Purohit, alleged intermediaries Jay Joshi and Ketan Kadam, and Matprop Technical Services Pvt Ltd, a Kochi-based company that rented machinery and equipment for the desilting work. According to the ED, the Morea brothers are close associates of Kadam. The Mumbai police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW), which had registered an FIR in the case on May 6, had questioned the brothers twice last month. The EOW booked 13 people and entities in the case, including three BMC officials, for allegedly causing a wrongful loss of ₹65.54 crore to the BMC. The ED's investigation is based on this case. On June 7, the ED said that its investigation and search operations have so far prima facie indicated that Ramgude, Purohit, Joshi, Kadam, officials of Matprop and others allegedly colluded to form a cartel with the intent to manipulate BMC's tenders related to desilting the Mithi River. 'This action effectively conferred a monopoly in [the] award of desilting contracts of Mithi river and caused payments at inflated rates for desilting works, resulting in undue gains to the contractors and associated parties, thereby causing financial loss to the public exchequer,' the agency said in a press release. These undue financial gains were concealed by layering them through certain shell companies formed by Kadam, Purohit, Ramgude and others, the agency added. During its searches last week, the ED seized ₹7 lakh in cash and froze 22 bank accounts/fixed deposits and a demat account. The total amount seized or frozen is more than ₹1.25 crore so far, the agency said. Certain digital devices and incriminating documents were also seized that appeared to be relevant for further proceedings under the PMLA, according to the ED.
