Brazil's Supreme Court justices agree to make social media companies liable for user content
Brazil's top court decided to rule on two different cases to reach an understanding on how to deal with social media companies as reports of fraud, child pornography and violence among teenagers become rampant online. Critics warn such measures could threaten free speech as platforms preemptively remove content that could be problematic.
Gilmar Mendes on Wednesday became the sixth of the court's 11 justices to vote to open a path for companies like Meta, X and Microsoft to be sued and pay fines for content published by their users. Voting is ongoing but a simple majority is all that is needed for the measure to pass.
The ruling will come after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of possible visa restrictions against foreign officials allegedly involved in censoring American citizens. One such official reportedly is Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has taken measures against social media outlets he deemed to have not complied with Brazilian law.
The only dissenting Brazilian justice so far is André Mendonça and his vote was made public last week. The court is yet to decide how such regulations will be enacted.
Mendonça said free speech on social media is key for the publication of information that "holds powerful public institutions to account, including governments, political elites and digital platforms.'
Justice Flávio Dino, the first to vote on Wednesday, reminded his colleagues that recent cases of school shootings in Brazil were stimulated on social media. He read out postings by one user who said he was happy by watching families of dead children 'weeping, bleeding, dying.'
'I think social media has not made humanity closer to what it has produced in best fashion,' he said.
The social media proposal would become law once voting is finished and the result is published. But Brazil's Congress could still pass another law to reverse the measure.
The current legislation states social media companies can only be held responsible if they do not remove hazardous content after a court order.
Public debate on regulating social networks increased in Brazil in the aftermath of the Jan. 8 riot in 2023, when supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro ransacked Congress, the presidential palace and the Supreme Court in the capital, Brasilia.
Platforms need to be pro-active in regulating content, said Alvaro Palma de Jorge, a law professor at the Rio-based Getulio Vargas Foundation, a think tank and university.
'They need to adopt certain precautions that are not compatible with simply waiting for a judge to eventually issue a decision ordering the removal of that content,' Palma de Jorge said.
Wednesday'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.
Rendering platforms automatically accountable for content on their platforms may infringe freedom of speech as they could resort to preemptively removing content, according to the Sao-Paulo based Brazilian Chamber of Digital Economy, an organization that represents sectors of the digital economy.
'This type of liability favors large companies with robust legal structures, to the detriment of smaller, national players, which negatively impacts competition,' said the organization, adding that the decision may increase barriers to innovation.
___
Hughes reported from Rio de Janeiro.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Your kid is getting a ‘Trump account.' Should you put your money in it?
Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' includes a gift to millions of families: $1,000 in an investment account for every eligible newborn. The new savings vehicles, akin to Individual Retirement Accounts, are designated for children who are U.S. citizens born from 2025 through 2028. In addition to the one-time government contribution, parents and others can chip in as much as $5,000 a year to the accounts, which beneficiaries can access at 18, with some constraints. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. The seed money is a boon for recipients and will grow tax-deferred. Financial planners say parents and guardians might do better putting their money into existing investment vehicles such as a 529 plan, a savings plan designed to cover college expenses. But 529s are limited to education, while backers say the new accounts can help their recipients beyond college. Republican lawmakers call the accounts 'Trump accounts,' though the Senate's plan to officially name them after the president did not make it to the final version of the legislation, which was signed Friday. They deliver on an idea that both Democrats and Republicans have floated for years: to invest money for all children at birth. Withdrawals from a 529 are not subject to state or federal taxes as long as the funds go toward qualified education expenses - a feature the new investment accounts don't share. And in the new accounts, parents' deposits don't qualify for a tax deduction, notes Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University. 'You have this very slight or minimal-to-nonexistent tax benefit,' he said. 'What is the point here?' Financial adviser Amy Spalding of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said she will continue to steer her clients to 529s. 'It's better from a tax standpoint,' Spalding said. 'And there are more investment options. And then there's a higher contribution limit.' (For 2025, a single person can deposit as much as $19,000 a year into a beneficiary's 529, while married couples can contribute as much $38,000.) Jeremiah Barlow, a financial planner in Santa Barbara, California, said the new accounts could benefit a family that has hit the maximum on their child's 529 and wants to save more, or who like the idea of setting up a fund for their child's first home or as an economic safety net. 'It would likely appeal to our families who want more flexibility for more general-purpose savings for their child's future,' Barlow said. 'You shouldn't rush to just use it because it's out there.' Leiserson cautioned that account holders should understand the tax implications, noting that withdrawals will be taxed at typical income rates, not at the capital gains rate of a taxable brokerage account. 'For most people, this is going to be worse than what they could do in a taxable account,' he said. Though parents don't get a tax deduction when they contribute to a new account, employers can claim a tax break for contributions on behalf of their workers' children or their teenage employees. Nonprofits also can contribute to they accounts. The law requires the new investment accounts to track a U.S. stock index, which means account holders have fewer options than they would in a brokerage account or a 529 plan, which generally offer a range of investment options with varying levels of risk, including stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Leiserson noted that all-stock portfolios come with their own risks, because they're tethered to market conditions. 'If you're saying, 'Okay, I'm going to start school in the fall' - if the market falls over the summer, the planning you were doing about how you were going to pay for college is totally messed up, because the money you thought would be there, isn't." The White House said the accounts 'will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning.' While some experts appreciate the premise of the accounts, they also see flaws in the design, such as the requirement that parents opt-in to the account on their tax return, which means people who don't know this might miss out. In addition, the law includes a penalty of at least $500 if a parent mistakenly claims an account, which could scare off some parents. During the grinding process of crafting the massive tax and spending legislation, the accounts changed both superficially - they were renamed from MAGA accounts to Trump accounts to a yet-to-be-determined name - and in substance. Legislators dropped plans to give account withdrawals favorable tax treatment similar to a brokerage account. Account withdrawals will be taxed at ordinary income tax rates, not capital gains rates. Congress also discarded rules that would have prescribed how beneficiaries could spend the money - on college at 18, on starting a business at 25, on buying a house at 30. Instead, account holders cannot touch the funds until they turn 18. After that, the rules are the same as those of an individual retirement account - withdrawals are taxed like income, plus an additional 10 percent tax penalty on any withdrawals before age 59½ except for certain qualified uses. Those uses include paying for college, supporting themselves if they become disabled, or recovering from domestic abuse or a natural disaster. Beneficiaries also can withdraw as much as $10,000 to buy their first home, and up to $5,000 when they have a new baby themselves. Even one of the Trump accounts' biggest proponents in Congress, Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), said in an interview that for many parents, the new account design offers more benefits for retirement than for college expenses. 'I would argue that the tax implications of a 529 are far more favorable,' he said, but noted that most families don't have the disposable income to invest in a 529, and the new accounts' $1,000 from the government can benefit people at all income levels. If the account saw a 6 percent rate of return for 18 years, it would be worth $2,854; if the stock market does well, it could be worth even more. 'The most beneficial thing in my opinion about these is that … you're investing from birth into an IRA,' Moore said. 'Most people start investing in an IRA at 30 …. We're talking at birth or at 30. The benefits of investing early into that IRA are significant.' Moore has four sons, and while none will qualify for the government's $1,000 seed money contribution for newborns, the law allows him to open a Trump account as a parent. He says he'll be putting money in it: 'I want my kids having a Trump account so they can take it out when they're 50 or 60 years old.' - - - Jacob Bogage contributed to this report. Related Content Arthur Ashe's knack for reinvention led him to history at Wimbledon Newlywed detained by ICE freed after 141 days and two deportation attempts The Met opens a dazzling wing of non-European art Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk says he's formed the 'America Party.' Mark Cuban and Anthony Scaramucci are interested.
Elon Musk said on X that he's forming a new political party amid a feud with President Donald Trump. He said it would be called the "America Party." Musk has publicly criticized Trump's spending bill, which the president signed on July 4. Elon Musk declared on X the formation of a new political party amid his ongoing feud with President Donald Trump over the "Big Beautiful Bill." "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom," Musk wrote in an X post on Saturday afternoon. The Tesla CEO had said Friday on his social media platform that one way the new party could work is to focus on winning just a handful of Senate seats and House districts that could serve as the "deciding vote" on "contentious laws," given the "razor-thin legislative margins" in Congress. Fellow billionaire Mark Cuban appeared — not for the first time — to support the idea of a new party, replying to Musk's Saturday announcement with a series of fireworks and fire emojis. He added in a separate post: "I work with @voterchoice. They will help you get on ballots. That is their mission." SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci, who briefly served as White House communications director under Trump in 2017, also appeared interested in the party. "I would like to meet to discuss. My DMs are open," he replied to Musk. Musk's "America Party" announcement came after he conducted a July 4 poll, asking X users if they want "independence" from the two-party system. About 65% of the 1.25 million participants voted "Yes." Musk, who was a staunch supporter of Trump's 2024 reelection bid, has been publicly critical of the president's "Big Beautiful Bill," a sweeping domestic policy bill that includes extensive tax cuts and could add more than $3 trillion to the national debt, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Musk has characterized the bill on X as a form of "debt slavery." Just days after stepping away from his work at the White House DOGE Office, which was tasked with cutting spending and reducing the deficit, Musk in June called the legislation a "massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill." Musk then proposed the idea of forming a new political party that represents the "80% in the middle." Musk's repeated attacks on the bill led to a spectacular public fallout between him and the president. Trump even suggested that his office would look into possibly deporting Musk, a South African immigrant. Musk's July 4 poll on X came the same day Trump signed the bill into law. Musk and a White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Musk's back-and-forth regarding his involvement in political affairs has been followed by volatile times for the CEO of Tesla, his EV company. Wall Street analysts, including Tesla bull Dan Ives, have said that Musk's politics could lead the company astray if the chief executive doesn't snap back into focus. Earlier in June, Baird analysts downgraded the Tesla stock, noting that the Musk-Trump spat adds "uncertainty to TSLA's outlook. Read the original article on Business Insider
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'
