In Brazil, Google Fined For Content of Anonymous Posting

Sabriel writes "Google's appeal against a 2008 defamation ruling in Brazil over an anonymous posting on Orkut has been denied, and Google has been fined $8,500US ($9,100) for the crime of being vandalized. In the words of the judge, Alvimar de Avila, 'By making space available on virtual networking sites, in which users can post any type of message without any checks beforehand, with offensive and injurious content, and, in many cases, of unknown origin, [Google] assumes the risk of causing damage [to other people].' I'd submit a blunter opinion of this farce, but it might be considered offensive and injurious content. ... I wonder if he's related to the judge in Italy?"

Comments

The Internet is less free... in Brazil.

[Luke has no name]

So... Brazil doesn't believe in freedom of expression on the Internet, nor do they subscribe to the "post anything, trust nothing" philosophy of the Internet. What a shame.

Yay America.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil.

[Runaway1956]

That's about stupid. In effect, WalMart should assume responsibility for that mouthy punk who used WalMart's intercom system to tell all black people to leave the store. WalMart is racist, because some kid used their intercom to make a racial statement. Extending that idea just a little bit - if you owned a shopping mall, and some skin heads staged a protest on your property, (with or without your permission) then you would be responsible for all the hate speech that resulted.

The fact is, many nations, including mine, have fascist laws that need to be changed. We need more activists working to make free speech a reality, and stop holding web sites and site administrators responsible for the rantings of ignoramuses.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil.

[Shihar]

He wasn't criticizing the judge, so I am not sure exactly why you are defending him. He was criticizing Brazil's laws (civil or otherwise). Brazil's laws around libel and slander absolutely suck beyond all comprehension. Brazil has close to the worst in the world. They do infringe greatly on the quality of public speech in Brazil, and if crap like this continues, all speech by all citizens in Brazil. The US on the other hand has, bar none, the best libel and slander laws in the world... which is to say, we basically have none. In order to get nailed for libel or slander in the US you need to 1) cause actual and real harm 2) personally know it is a lie 3) are presumed innocent with extremely high bars set for proving 1 & 2, and 4) can counter sue any asshole that loses their case. You are more likely to be struck dead by lightening than get sued and lose a slander case in the US.

That said, the US has an equivalent to Brazil's terrible libel and slander laws. US copyright laws have more or less the same effect. The only reason why I would take evil US copyright laws over evil Brazil libel and slander laws is that you can make a half-assed argument that copyright does something useful and, far more importantly, crappy slander and libel laws protect slime ball politicians much better than crappy copyright laws.

Brazil is actually doing some innovative stuff in terms of copyright law. I don't know exactly where it stands today, but they had an awesome proposal that they were giving serious though to a little while back on enforcing sanity in copyright law. Give me that plus US libel and slander law, and I think you are looking at some pretty decent steps taken in protecting freedom of speech.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil.

[Runaway1956]

No one implied that Google was hacked. Providing a place where people might express themselves does not make you responsible for every idea that might be expressed. It's as simple as that. Own a pub? A couple of gorillas decide to duke it out, for any number of reasons? HEY! IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR HAVING A PUBLIC PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN DRINK, TALK, OR FIGHT!

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil.

[DarkKnightRadick]

If the law deserves to be mocked...

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil.

[d3ac0n]

Google may fall in the second cathegory by current law.

Except that it quite clearly does not.

Google didn't re-post the libelous comments AS GOOGLE or as a Google Employee or legal functionary. if they had, then your example "B" would be dead-on. Google's case clearly falls under Example "A".

They were simply providing a forum. If you read the TOS of the forum in question the person in question was clearly in violation of the TOS. So someone misrepresented themselves (by agreeing to the TOS) and then posted something libelous which Google was not quite quick enough in removing. How, in any SANE universe is this Google's fault?

No, the Judge is just a freaking moron and/or the law in Brazil is stupidly written.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil.

[elnyka]

But wearing the pissed off person hat

Easy tiger, you are not even Brazilian to take offense, certainly has never lived in the US or Brazil. You are not even from this side of the globe. And look at you, with your panties on fire by e-rage. RAAAARGH!!!

Seriously man, you don't know who you were replying to. For all you know, he's a Brazilian living in the US (yes, a foreign person living in the US preferring the US in some ways over his own country. Incredible, I know.) Take me for instance. I'm Nicaraguan, but I live in the US, and the hell that I will back there again. After having lived half of my life under civil law and my other half under case/common law, I much prefer the later when you take all pros and cons into account. I personally know quote a few Brazilians living here who feel the same.

I'm not saying that the dude is a US-living Brazilian, but you really don't know who you are blasting away with your ARGGH-AMERCUNT! post, do you?

you are an asshole and can shove your nationalistic pride up your ass.

You were just looking for an opportunity to vent some long-built steam against what you *think* is American nationalism. You found something, you built yourself into an e-rage and made up an excuse to blast the living crap out of it. I'm not one to judge people for their proclivities, so do as you please. Just don't complain if you get blisters after screwing that nice straw man you just built here.

You can live in a place where corporations can do anything and people can do nothing. Call it freedom if you want and go away.

See, that's reverse nationalism supported by thick brush painted generalizations of something you barely know of. Projection is the clutch for those who like to feel morally superior. Let me know how it works for you. Or better yet, get some help and stop being such a sensitive e-bitch looking for a gratuitous cause to fight for. It might actually do you some good.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil.

[paraax]

This freedom do not gives you the right to offend others. You have the freedom to say whatever you want, as long as you don't use this freedom to clearly offend someone.

And this is where we part ways. You cannot have the right not to be offended, even if the government says you do. Such a right (perfectly enforced) would lead to a society where noone could say anything to anyone for fear of offending them. And it wouldn't stop there as I personally know people who'd be happy to take there offense at the slightest smell to a judge. Wearing the wrong cologne today?

The bar must be set higher to have logically consistent rules.

Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous

[thijsh]

When will people understand that freedom of speech is inherently linked to offense and injury on the side of the receiving part of any 'verbal abuse' or 'insults'... This is not something you can (or need to) protect against without sacrificing (or eroding) freedom of speech!
I hope judges in other countries (and perhaps Brazil too) will realize that this is not a matter of law, but a matter of common decency. If you insult someone willingly you're a dick and that's it, no need for laws, no need for convictions and most of all no need for a jihad or any physical harm.

Oh yeah, and people who believe they need (or have right to) legal protection against insults are dumbasses who are willing to sacrifice one of our basic rights for their own personal little feel-good gain. Grow some fucking self-confidence and just don't dignify some things with a response! Every time I hear someone proclaim 'the should be a law against saying X' a little part of me dies...

Re:Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous

[aussie_a]

I hope your never falsely accused of a terrible crime. Although if you are, and the allegation is made public, you will find out first hand just how much your damage your version of freedom of speech entails.

Screaming "Rapist" or "Paedophile" at innocent people isn't something that should be protected in my opinion. But then I'm Australian where freedom of speech isn't explicitly guaranteed. So I'm sure you'll dismiss my opinion as that of an ignorant savage. But hey, go team America!

Anonymity is forbidden in Brazil

[EmagGeek]

Guys, before you get all hot under the collar, please keep in mind that anonymity is forbidden in Brazil by her Federal Constitution; Title II, Chapter 1, Article 5, Paragraph 4:

IV - the expression of thought is free, anonymity being forbidden;

X - the privacy, private life, honour and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for property or moral damages resulting from their violation is ensured;

So, anonymously posting defaming material against someone else violates at least two of the victim's constitutionally guaranteed civil rights in Brazil.

Re:The Internet is less free... Everywhere.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The famous "Fire in a crowded theater" analogy is appropriate here.

The classic strawman argument to justify censorship: There exist situations where people are liable for their use of speech, therefore censorship is valid. The fallacy here is thinking that no censorship means no liability. Censorship and liability are two very, very different concepts. Liability means people must be tried in open court under the law. Censorship means that works can be banned without recourse to trial or law, and all outside the public eye. Empowering censors weakens both open society and the rule of law.

As you point out nearly all normal people support limits on the written and spoken word depending on the circumstances.

Indeed, depending on the circumstances. And the trouble is those circumstances for 99.9% of people will be "If they're talking about something I don't like." Given the opportunity, the public would happily ban "violent" video games. There used to be a rule of law which prevented this kind of thing from happening, but fear and apathy is slowly eroding it. We will all end up like Australia before too long.