Brazil's Supreme Court decides to hold social media companies liable for user content
Brazil's Supreme Court agreed on Thursday on details of a decision to hold social media companies liable for what their users post, clearing the way for it to go into effect within weeks.
The 8-3 vote in Brazil's top court orders tech giants like Google, Meta, and TikTok to actively monitor content that involves hate speech, racism, and incitation to violence and act to remove it.
The case has unsettled the relationship between the South American nation and the U.S. government. Critics have expressed concern that the move could threaten free speech if platforms preemptively remove content that could be problematic.
3 Brazil's Supreme Court agreed on details of a decision to hold social media companies liable for what their users post, clearing the way for it to go into effect within weeks.
AP
After Thursday's ruling is published by the court, people will be able to sue social media companies for hosting illegal content if they refuse to remove it after a victim brings it to their attention. The court didn't set out firm rules on what content is illegal, leaving it to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The ruling strengthens a law that requires companies to remove content only after court orders, which were often ignored.
It's the product of two cases accepted by the court last year in which social media companies were accused of failing to act against users promoting fraud, child pornography, and violence.
A majority of the 11 justices voted to approve the change two weeks ago, but it took until today to reach consensus on how to implement it.
3 The 8-3 vote in Brazil's top court orders tech giants like Google, Meta, and TikTok to actively monitor content that involves hate speech, racism, and incitation to violence and act to remove it.
REUTERS
The justices also agreed that social media companies will not be liable if they can show they took steps to remove illegal content in a timely fashion.
Google said in a statement that it is analyzing the court's decision.
'We remain open for dialogue,' the company said.
3 The justices also agreed that social media companies will not be liable if they can show they took steps to remove illegal content in a timely fashion.
AFP via Getty Images
Brazil's top court came to the decision after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of possible visa restrictions against foreign officials involved in censoring American citizens.
Thursday's ruling brings Brazil's approach to big tech closer to the European Union's approach, which has sought to rein in the power of social media companies and other digital platforms.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
Miami Herald
42 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Top housing official sends Fed Chair Powell blunt message on mortgage rates
American homeowners and aspiring homebuyers are exhausted by mortgage rates that are the highest in this century. With 30-year fixed mortgages at 6.77% on June 26, the housing industry is stagnant: no buyers, no sellers, and – an important economic indicator – lagging new construction. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter U.S. Housing FHFA Director William J. Pulte, echoing his boss President Donald Trump, puts the blame squarely on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Related: Fed chair sends strong message on tariffs to Senate panel Pulte ratcheted up criticism of Powell this week, first calling for his resignation and then delivering a powerful personal rebuke on June 27. Image source: Bloomberg/Getty Images Pulte, also the head of Fannie Mae, is the grandson of the founder of the mega homebuilder PulteGroup and formerly served on PulteGroup's board of directors. The U.S. housing market is especially brutal right now for first-time homebuyers, who can barely afford down payments, since supply shortages have propped up home prices. The median price for a new home exceeded $407,000 in April, up from $310,000 in 2020. The average mortgage payment also doubled to $2,207 in 2024, according to Bankrate, leaving first-time buyers struggling to keep up. Related: Fannie Mae chief Pulte sends savage one-word message to Fed's Powell Privately-owned housing starts in May were at a seasonally adjusted rate of 1,256,000. This is 9.8% below the revised April estimate. The Northeast, South, and Midwest saw declines, while the West saw an increase. The Fed's dual mandate is to prudently monitor monetary policy to maintain inflation (at about 2%) and keep unemployment relatively low to ensure the recession-free economy and its GDP are humming along. It's a delicate balance. The Federal Open Meeting Committee controls the Federal Funds Rate, which banks charge each other overnight to borrow money. At the June meeting, the funds rate stayed at 4.25% to 4.50%. The last funds rate cut was in December 2024. The funds rate is tied to the cost of borrowing money for consumers, investors, and businesses. Related: Fed official predicts when to expect interest rate cuts Mortgage rates typically run 2% to 3% higher than the 10-year Treasury note yield, and the Fed Funds Rate highly influences the 10-year yield. As a result, 30-year mortgage rates have risen to roughly 6.8% from 2.7% in early 2021. The average mortgage payment also doubled to $2,207 between 2020 and 2024. At the time of the June Fed meeting, Powell said the post-pandemic economy was resilient and stable, but the risk of tariff inflation on prices on the nation's supply chain prompted a "wait-and-see" approach to holding rates steady. He repeated those assertions to both the House and Senate panels this week, adding that the expected inflation from the tariffs would likely bubble up into economic indicators for June and July. If interest rates drop, so will mortgage rates, Pulte said in a June 27 CNBC interview. Powell "can hallucinate about what tariffs can do,'' but he's wrong, Pulte said. "That's why we need the 'Fake High Priest of the Fed'...to lower rates,'' Pulte said. More Federal Reserve: Fed interest rate cut decision resets forecasts for the rest of this yearFederal Reserve prepares strong message on long-term interest ratesFed official revamps interest-rate cut forecast for this year Large, medium, and small construction companies are all hurting from the housing crisis, Pulte said. Publicly traded builders are not immune, he added. "The American people are sick and tired,'' said Pulte, who earlier called for Powell to resign. President Trump's proposed tariffs – essentially an external sales tax to U.S. trading partners that we pay one way or another – face a July 9 deadline. The president, during a press conference in the White House Briefing Room on June 27, re-hashed his displeasure over high interest rates, calling Powell "just not a very smart person." The next Fed meeting is July 29-30. Both Fed and market watchers had forecast the next probable rate cut could appear at the central bank's September FOMC meeting. Related: Fed official makes surprising interest rate cut prediction The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Sotomayor says public education is doomed without mandatory gay and trans story hour
The end is nigh. That seems to be the message this week from the three liberal justices at the Supreme Court when faced with the nightmarish prospect of parents being able to remove their young children from mandatory classes on gay, lesbian and transgender material. The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was a roaring victory for parents in public schools. The Montgomery County, Md. school system fought to require the reading of 13 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' texts in the English and Language Arts curriculum for kids from pre-K through 12th grade. That covers children just 5-11 years old. The children are required to read or listen to stories like 'Prince & Knight' about two male knights who marry each other, and 'Love Violet' about two young girls falling in love. Another, 'Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,' discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy. Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, 'That comment is hurtful!' Even if a student merely asks, 'What's transgender?,' teachers are expected to say, 'When we're born, people make a guess about our gender and label us 'boy' or 'girl' based on our body parts. Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.' Teachers were specifically told to '[d]isrupt' thinking or values opposing transgender views. Many families sought to opt out of these lessons. The school allows for such opt-outs for a variety of reasons, but the Board ruled out withdrawals for these lessons. Ironically, it noted that so many families were upset and objecting that it would be burdensome to allow so many kids to withdraw. The Montgomery County school system is one of the most diverse in the nation. And Christian, Muslim, and other families objected to the mandatory program as undermining their religious and moral values. The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared 'another victory for right-wing culture warriors,' even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents. However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there 'will be chaos for this nation's public schools' and both education and children will 'suffer' if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. She also worried about the 'chilling effect' of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future. It was a particularly curious concern, since parents would like teachers to focus more on core subjects and show greater restraint in pursuing social agendas. The majority pushed back against 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the three liberal justices on dismissing the objections of so many families to these lessons. Nevertheless, even though such material was only recently added and made mandatory, the liberal justices declared that 'the damage to America's public education system will be profound' and 'threatens the very essence of public education.' The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S. Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools. Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: 'If parents want to 'have a say' in their child's education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.' Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: 'The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.' These parents still harbor the apparently misguided notion that these remain their children. Today, many are indeed following Jackson's advice and leaving public schools. The opposition of public-sector unions and many Democratic politicians to school vouchers is precisely because families are fleeing the failing public school systems. Once they are no longer captive to the system, they opt for private schools that offer a greater focus on basic educational subjects and less emphasis on social activism. Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve 'equity' and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack of math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities. It may offer some cover for more moderate school officials to push back against such demands for mandatory readings to young children. What the majority calls 'the deliberately blinkered view' of the dissent could just as well describe the delusional position of public school boards and unions. Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures. The liberal justices are right about one thing: This is a fight over 'the essence of public education.' However, it is the parents, not the educators (or these justices) who are trying to restore public education to meet the demands for a diverse nation. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'
