Brazil's Supreme Court makes social media directly liable for illegal content
Brazil's Supreme Court on Thursday, June 26, ruled that digital platforms must act immediately to remove hate speech and content that promotes serious crimes, in a key ruling on the liability of Big Tech for illegal posts.
Brazil, where a Supreme Court judge famously took Elon Musk's X offline last year for 40 days over disinformation, has gone further than any other Latin American country in clamping down on questionable or illegal social media posts. Thursday's ruling makes social media platforms liable for third-party content deemed illegal, even without a court order.
Eight of the 11 judges ruled than an article of the 2014 Internet Civil Framework, which holds that the platforms are liable for questionable content only if they refuse to comply with a court order to remove it, was partially unconstitutional.
A majority of judges ruled that platforms must act "immediately" to remove content that promotes anti-democratic actions, terrorism, hate speech, child pornography and other serious crimes. For other types of illegal content, companies may be held liable for damages if they fail to remove it after it is flagged up by a third party.
The ruling is likely to deepen the tensions between the Supreme Court, on one hand, and the technology companies who accuse Brazil of censorship.
"We preserve freedom of expression as much as possible, without, however, allowing the world to fall into an abyss of incivility, legitimizing hate speech or crimes indiscriminately committed online," the court's president, Justice Luis Roberto Barroso, wrote.
Justice Kassio Nunes, one of the three dissenting judges, argued, however, that "civil liability rests primarily with those who caused the harm" and not with the platforms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LeMonde
9 hours ago
- LeMonde
Supreme Court boosts Trump over federal judges, raising fears of an unchecked presidency
On June 27, the conservative justices of the US Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a political victory, which he loudly celebrated. By restricting federal judges' power to suspend executive orders, the Supreme Court chose to rule against the broader judiciary, of which it is the highest authority. This judicial deference follows that of Congress, where Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives had already relinquished much of their authority in the face of Trump. It is hardly debatable that universal injunctions, which allow a single federal judge to block a presidential order, have always been seen as excessive by the party occupying the White House. The six conservative justices – who in their ruling denounced what they considered an abuse of power, over the objections of the three progressive justices – found nothing to object to when these injunctions targeted orders signed by Democrat Joe Biden between 2021 to 2025. This clear bias is compounded by the context. The Supreme Court had been asked to review the legality of an order abolishing jus soli – the right to citizenship by birthplace – which clearly violates the 14 th Amendment of the Constitution. Rather than ruling on substance, which would have been uncomfortable for the Trump administration, the Court chose to focus on procedure. While it maintained a path for legal challenges by ruling that such an order cannot take immediate effect, allowing for class action suits, this evasive tactic, in addition to the chaos it could create depending on the political leanings of each state, risks further damaging an already tarnished reputation. A trampled past Even before the July 1, 2024, decision granting Trump broad immunity for actions taken during his first term, the conservative majority had consistently worked to strengthen executive power. The new leeway given to the Republican president to dismiss federal agency heads without just cause – except for the Federal Reserve – confirmed this intent. It is troubling that this effort to roll back the American system of checks and balances, especially those added to the US institutional framework following the excesses of Republican President Richard Nixon, coincides with Trump's return to power. From his baseless and outrageous challenge of the 2020 presidential election results to the astonishing hoarding of classified documents at his private residence after his ignominious departure from office, Trump has amply demonstrated his disregard for norms and the law. , the decree overturning jus soli, introduced into the US Constitution in 1868, provided fresh evidence of this contempt. It is, unfortunately, likely that this increase in presidential power will outlast the next change of administration. As long as Congress remains paralyzed by division, it is unlikely that a Democratic president would willingly give up these expanded powers. It is therefore regrettable that a political movement that champions a return to "American greatness" should so trample its own institutional heritage. The US has nothing to gain from this.
LeMonde
19 hours ago
- LeMonde
US Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant' win on powers of judges
US President Donald Trump hailed a "giant win" Friday, June 27, after the Supreme Court curbed lone judges from blocking the Republican's raft of controversial policies. The 6-3 ruling, with the court's liberal justices all dissenting, stemmed from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship. The court said individual district judges had likely exceeded their powers by issuing nationwide injunctions, which have also blocked a string of Trump's hardline policies on immigration, diversity and firing federal employees. "The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," 79-year-old Trump told a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including stopping funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants. His initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN." US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop "rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation." Trump separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed books at public schools. Critics say the move threatens secular education by opening the door to religious objections. 'Step toward authoritarianism' The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump – or future US presidents. The Supreme Court's majority decision was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, and joined by the other five conservative justices. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling was "nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "terrifying step toward authoritarianism." Trump, however, rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. "This is really the opposite of that," Trump said. "This really brings back the Constitution." Partner service Learn French with Gymglish Thanks to a daily lesson, an original story and a personalized correction, in 15 minutes per day. Try for free Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by district court judges around the country – both Democratic and Republican appointees - since he took office in January. 'Lawless actions' Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda. But such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office. The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. Trump said that the policy "was meant for the babies of slaves," dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s.
Euronews
a day ago
- Euronews
US Supreme Court limits federal judges power on birthright citizenship
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Shortly after the ruling, Trump told reporters he'd 'promptly file' to advance policies blocked by judges, including birthright citizenship restrictions. He hailed the ruling, calling it "a big, amazing decision" and a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law." Despite the ruling, a conservative majority Supreme Court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship limitations could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to US-born children of people who are in the country illegally. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Are these the last days of US birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship—the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil'—is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.
