Court: Social networks must be held accountable for illegal content
By a vote of 8 to 3, the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled on Thursday (Jun. 26) that social media platforms should be held directly responsible for illegal content posted by their users.
After six consecutive sessions, the Court declared that Article 19 of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (Law 12.965/2014), which defines the rights and duties related to internet use in Brazil, is unconstitutional.
The provision stated that, “in order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship,” platforms could only be held liable for user posts if they failed to remove illegal content after receiving a court order.
Thus, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, big tech companies were not held civilly liable for illegal content—such as anti-democratic posts, hate speech, personal insults, and other ilegal contents.
At the end of the trial, the Court approved a legal thesis outlining the rules that platforms must follow to remove posts.
The final text established that Article 19 does not protect fundamental rights and democracy. Additionally, until a new law on the matter is passed, providers will be subject to civil liability for user posts.
According to the decision, platforms must remove the following types of illegal content upon extrajudicial notification:
- Anti-democratic acts
- Terrorism
- Inducement to suicide and self-harm
- Incitement to discrimination based on race, religion, gender identity, homophobic and transphobic behavior
- Crimes against women and content that propagates hatred against women
- Child pornography
- Human trafficking
Voting
The last vote on the issue was cast in Thursday’s session by Justice Nunes Marques, who voted against direct liability for social media platforms. He argued that direct liability should be established by Congress.
According to Marques, freedom of expression is a constitutional safeguard that must be protected. Therefore, responsibility for published content lies with the person who caused the damage, i.e., the user.
Cristiano Zanin, one of the justices who ruled the article unconstitutional, stated that the provision is inadequate to protect fundamental rights and places the burden on users to take legal action in cases of offensive and illegal posts.
