Brazil’s Supreme Court on Wednesday concluded a two-day session of public hearings to discuss the legal framework for the internet, in a debate very similar to the one taking place in the U.S. In both countries, the dispute centers on a legal provision that grants social media platforms immunity from liability based on content posted by their users.
In the U.S. case, Section 230 of the 1996 Communication Decency Act has been called “the twenty-six words that created the internet.” The legislation helped the internet develop by making it clear that distributors, such as blogging platforms, were not liable for what their users wrote. This provided an incentive for companies to offer free tools to publish content online.
Brazil gained similar legislation with the 2014 Civil Rights Framework for the Internet. Article 19 states that an internet application provider can only be held liable for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if it fails to take steps to remove it “after a specific court order.” As in the U.S., this has encouraged companies to take a laissez-faire approach to content moderation.
In recent years, however, things have changed. In 1999, just a few years after Section 230 was enacted, even the science fiction movie “The Matrix” offered its characters the chance to disconnect from virtual reality. Today, the internet is in our pockets and does not require a phone line. This has led policymakers in both countries to propose increasing the responsibility of internet companies for user-generated content.
In the last U.S. presidential election in 2020, this issue was one of the few that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden agreed on — they both proposed to repeal Section 230.
A traumatic make-out session
The debate at the Brazilian Supreme Court revolves around two cases that seek to hold social media platforms accountable for the content posted by their users. One case concerns the duty of hosting companies to review content and remove offensive posts even without a court order....
Search
