Slashdot Mirror
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?"
I'm adding Brazil to the blacklist, along with UK, Australia, China, Iran, and a few other places hell-bent on destroying free speech.
weinersmith
Maybe they should... Is it necessary for us as a society to protect that? Is it free speech at all?
It's the fine line that the law should adjust carefully and is hard to get it right. Google adds some elaboration on top of that (formatting etc...). They even backup it! Me and you, we know the internet works that way, but the law was not written with the internet in mind, this is sure.
Well this IS Brazil.
This same country allowed an American wife to abduct a child, and then after the wife died in Brazil, the country continued to hold the man's son for another ~5 years, rather than return the son to his rightful home in the U.S. and genetic father. There are around 100 similar U.S. children being illegally held by Brazil, and the courts/government refuse to do anything about it. Brazil is more akin to Mexico in its corruption of the courts.
So do I find this ruling that corporations like Google or Walmart are liable for the actions of their anonymous customers? Not at all. Seems par for the course.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
See, this is exactly the problem. Nobody is saying that the law was wrongly applied, we are saying the law is wrong.
If not blindly respecting the legitimacy of laws (in this case, incidentally of another country) makes me a nationalistic asshole, then so be it.
There are a shitton of laws I have absolutely no respect for whatsoever, and most of them are American laws. However, libel and slander laws actually are something US laws are pretty sane about. For example, in the UK, being correct is not an absolute defence against libel/slander.
But oooooh noooooo, I'm an American and I just expressed my opinion that in some ways America might be better than another particular country!!! I must be a fanatical patriot redneck who blindly loves America and gets his kicks off by slighting Europeans on online tech websites!!!
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
I'm Brazilian and that is really not true. Orkut is here what Facebook is at the U.S., it's "the" social networking site. Almost everyone with Internet access have a orkut. And as a mainstream communication tool, many people use it to offend, scam, spread fud, and all sorts of bad things.
Here, if you are being damaged by offending posts, anonymous or not, you can get help from the police. And if it's a anonymous post that couldn't be tracked, who's to blame? Apparently the judge understood (and I do too) that Google is to blame because it created that communication medium. If Google made it anonymous, it took the risk this medium would be used to this sort of (illegal) thing. Something like "if it wasn't for Google creating this orkut thing, this would never have happened... and someone needs to be held responsible for this."
Yeah, we believe in freedom of expression on the Internet. But "your freedom ends where the next one's start". 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.
Is "no" the answer to this question?
>>>You're assuming a company has to do business in that country.
If only it were that simple. To quote Cicero: "Where is there to run? What part of the known world is not within the reach of the Roman Senate and their new King? Liberty is dead and so am I." We are not yet under the control of a single government, but our leaders appear intent upon making us "unified" under a single law (ACTA and other legal treaties). Today Brazil. In 2020, the entire world may have these anti-free speech laws that make it impossible to speak your mind, due to fear of jail.
And then somebody will be saying: "Where is there to run? What part of the known world is not within the reach of the RIAA or the UN administration?"
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I know of only two places in the world more corrupt than Brazil.
One is New Orleans, the other is Chicago.