10 Apr 13 | Brazil, Uncategorized
A judge from the Brazilian State of Goiás has ruled that a football club director allegedly linked to the killing of a sports journalist must remain in prison while he awaits trial.
Radio presenter Valério Luiz de Oliveira was gunned down at the front door of 820 AM radio station in the state capital Goiânia on 5 July 2012.
Businessman Maurício Borges Sampaio, who acted as Atlético Clube Goianiense’s vice-president up to 10 days before Oliveira’s murder, was arrested in February this year accused of having ordered the killing. He denies having any link to the crime.
Days before being killed, Oliveira went on air to strongly denounce Atlético’s management for the team, after poor results on the pitch led to the club’s relegation to the second tier of the Brazilian league later that year .
Among other statements, the presenter compared Atlético’s directors to “rats” that abandon a ship before it sinks .
In a testimony given to the Police, Sampaio admitted signing a document that barred Oliveira’s radio staff from the club’s premises. The former director also claimed the radio presenter had already being banned from Goiás and Vila Nova, two other football clubs in Goiânia.
Three other people accused of acting in the journalist’s killing are also being held in prison.
03 Apr 13 | Brazil, Digital Freedom
Brazil has been caught up in a fresh controversy over attempts to curb online criticism of politicians. This time, the main players are tech giant Google and the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house in the country’s congress. Brazil is already one of the world’s leaders in online content removal.
In early March, the Chamber of Deputies’ Attorney General, Cláudio Cajado, contacted Google in order to request the removal of online videos and content hosted by the company, for being offensive to deputies.
Cajado, a Democratas Party representative from the state of Bahia, denies that his requests were attempts to restrict freedom of expression, and claimed that he only wanted to speed up the processes that, when left to the Justice, could take months — or even years to be solved.
According to Cajado’s office, Google has responded to his requests by being very “thoughtful” in explaining its policies on content removal.
The Attorney General’s office says it receives an average of two complaints per month by the deputies, mainly because of videos uploaded on YouTube, or posts published on its Blogger platform.
The Chamber of Deputies’ Attorney General is responsible for defending the deputies’ honour and the House’s image.
“We seek a partnership [with Google] to set up actions and attitudes, without creating any kind of erosion [of the House’s image] or harsh consequences”, said Cajado to the Chamber of Deputies’ website.
He cited the case of federal deputy and former Rio de Janeiro governor and presidential candidate Anthony Garotinho, who filed a lawsuit against Google demanding the removal of 11 YouTube videos during the 2010 electoral campaign.
“We have to count on Google executives’ good will and on their comprehension over the importance of measures like this to our country’s life and our democracy,” said Cajado.
As he took office as the Chamber’s Attorney General in early March, Cajado also said he planned to ensure that deputies had enough media time to reply to criticism, and plans to do the same online.
All complaints brought by deputies to the Attorney General are analysed by his office’s legal team, to ensure that cases that can lead to actual lawsuits are taken forward.
The most common cases of online attacks brought to the Attorney General’s office are related to slander and — more seriously — crimes against honour, which is a punishable offence according to Brazil’s law.
When it comes to the Brazilian judiciary, rulings about the internet can be very diverse and — sometimes — illogical.
In September 2012, a judge from the state of Mato Grosso do Sul ordered the arrest of Fabio Coelho, Google’s top executive in Brazil, after videos deemed offensive to a mayoral candidate were uploaded to YouTube. When the posts were not immediately deleted, Brazil’s federal police temporarily detained Coelho.
While the Superior Court of Justice has already ruled that internet providers are not obliged to pay reparations to users because of offensive content, the Supreme Court is about to judge if internet companies should supervise information that is published.
This is related to an appeal by Google after the State Justice of Minas Gerais, Brazil’s second most populous state, ordered the company to pay BRL 10,000 (around USD $5,000) to an offended user, and to remove content from Orkut, Google’s social network.
The Attorney General’s new initiative has already worried a few of his fellow deputies.
“The Parliament’s best defence is a transparent behaviour, one that seeks the public interest. And anyone that feels injured or vilified can always go to the Justice and seek reparation. I believe the Attorney General should have other priorities.” says Chico Alencar, a Rio de Janeiro representative for the Socialism and Freedom Party, PSOL.
Alencar also fears that these actions taken along with Google could worsen politicians already tarnished public image.
“Public opinion would consider this as censorship and a privilege for people that already have many other privileges. We should learn how to reply to websites by creating another websites and, if that’s the case, asking those who offend us for the right to reply. That would be enough.”
Editor’s note: Google is a funder of Index on Censorship
03 Apr 13 | Digital Freedom, Newswire
Brazil has been caught up in a fresh controversy over attempts to curb online criticism of politicians. This time, the main players are tech giant Google and the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house in the country’s congress. Brazil is already one of the world’s leaders in online content removal.
In early March, the Chamber of Deputies’ Attorney General, Cláudio Cajado, contacted Google in order to request the removal of online videos and content hosted by the company, for being offensive to deputies.
Cajado, a Democratas Party representative from the state of Bahia, denies that his requests were attempts to restrict freedom of expression, and claimed that he only wanted to speed up the processes that, when left to the Justice, could take months — or even years to be solved.
According to Cajado’s office, Google has responded to his requests by being very “thoughtful” in explaining its policies on content removal.
The Attorney General’s office says it receives an average of two complaints per month by the deputies, mainly because of videos uploaded on YouTube, or posts published on its Blogger platform.
The Chamber of Deputies’ Attorney General is responsible for defending the deputies’ honour and the House’s image.
“We seek a partnership [with Google] to set up actions and attitudes, without creating any kind of erosion [of the House’s image] or harsh consequences”, said Cajado to the Chamber of Deputies’ website.
He cited the case of federal deputy and former Rio de Janeiro governor and presidential candidate Anthony Garotinho, who filed a lawsuit against Google demanding the removal of 11 YouTube videos during the 2010 electoral campaign.
“We have to count on Google executives’ good will and on their comprehension over the importance of measures like this to our country’s life and our democracy,” said Cajado.
As he took office as the Chamber’s Attorney General in early March, Cajado also said he planned to ensure that deputies had enough media time to reply to criticism, and plans to do the same online.
All complaints brought by deputies to the Attorney General are analysed by his office’s legal team, to ensure that cases that can lead to actual lawsuits are taken forward.
The most common cases of online attacks brought to the Attorney General’s office are related to slander and — more seriously — crimes against honour, which is a punishable offence according to Brazil’s law.
When it comes to the Brazilian judiciary, rulings about the internet can be very diverse and — sometimes — illogical.
In September 2012, a judge from the state of Mato Grosso do Sul ordered the arrest of Fabio Coelho, Google’s top executive in Brazil, after videos deemed offensive to a mayoral candidate were uploaded to YouTube. When the posts were not immediately deleted, Brazil’s federal police temporarily detained Coelho.
While the Superior Court of Justice has already ruled that internet providers are not obliged to pay reparations to users because of offensive content, the Supreme Court is about to judge if internet companies should supervise information that is published.
This is related to an appeal by Google after the State Justice of Minas Gerais, Brazil’s second most populous state, ordered the company to pay BRL 10,000 (around USD $5,000) to an offended user, and to remove content from Orkut, Google’s social network.
The Attorney General’s new initiative has already worried a few of his fellow deputies.
“The Parliament’s best defence is a transparent behaviour, one that seeks the public interest. And anyone that feels injured or vilified can always go to the Justice and seek reparation. I believe the Attorney General should have other priorities.” says Chico Alencar, a Rio de Janeiro representative for the Socialism and Freedom Party, PSOL.
Alencar also fears that these actions taken along with Google could worsen politicians already tarnished public image.
“Public opinion would consider this as censorship and a privilege for people that already have many other privileges. We should learn how to reply to websites by creating another websites and, if that’s the case, asking those who offend us for the right to reply. That would be enough.”
Editor’s note: Google is a funder of Index on Censorship
27 Mar 13 | Brazil, Digital Freedom, Uncategorized
Brazil’s constitution protects free speech, but antiquated local laws often threaten this fundamental right in digital spaces.
The latest statistics from Google’s Transparency Report show that Brazil issues the third most court orders for content removal behind the US and Germany. Recent cases, including the arrest of a Google executive for refusing to take down a video from YouTube, highlight the growing need for reform.
The Marco Civil da Internet, a draft bill that’s been in the works for several years, aims to guarantee greater freedom of expression, net neutrality, and the protection of private user data online in Brazil. I recently spoke with Alessandro Molon, a congressman from Brazil’s centre-left Workers’ Party and the bill’s rapporteur, about what many are calling the first Internet Bill of Rights.
The Marco Civil draft bill will be Brazil’s first Internet Bill of Rights — but its progress has slowed significantly
The idea of a Brazilian regulatory framework for internet civil rights first emerged in 2007 when civil society began urging lawmakers to stop prioritising cybercrime over civil rights online. The Ministry of Justice, NGOs and academics joined forces in 2009 to launch the Marco Civil draft bill initiative as a piece of crowdsourced collaborative legislation. Thousands of people have since participated in public consultations online to help shape the bill’s direction.
The word “marco” in Portuguese means framework. “Marco Civil is about the rights of people online, but it should also be seen as a framework for the legislative process,” Molon says. “I think the way it was drafted has shown Brazilian lawmakers that civil society input can create stronger legislation. It’s a medicine to heal the distance between representatives and those they represent, which is a big problem in our democracies today.”
In addition to specific provisions around net neutrality and privacy, Marco Civil addresses basic internet access as fundamental for the advancement of freedom of expression and other civil rights. Only 40 per cent of Brazilians use the internet, meaning more than 100 million still lack access in the country.
Molon sees Marco Civil as an important step in guaranteeing a free, open, democratic and decentralised internet. He also see its collaborative genesis as a legislative model that should be replicated in countries around the world.
Bringing everyone to the table is certainly democratic, but it can also be slow. After nearly coming to vote four times in the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil’s lower house, the bill has been pulled from the docket each time for a variety of reasons including lack of quorum, consent and support.
Marco Civil has also been slowed by private companies interested in strengthening copyright laws and those with business models dependent on user data lobbying for amendments. These efforts mirror the corporate influence that nearly pushed SOPA and PIPA into law in the US and that are stalling the EU’s proposed new data protection regulations.
Voting on Marco Civil was most recently postponed in November after two amendments introduced troubling provisions around net neutrality and copyright infringement. Without adequate safe harbour provisions, which protect internet companies from being held liable for their users’ actions, companies often restrict more content than legally required to stay safely within the confines of the law, thus chilling free speech.
The same day the bill was recently derailed, Brazil approved two cybercrime bills.
“That was a civil society defeat,” Molon said. “We wanted Marco Civil to be the first Brazilian law about the internet. Unfortunately, it’s easier to decide what should be seen as a crime than to guarantee the rights of citizens, but that has to change.”
The new cybercrime laws revise Brazil’s Penal Code, criminalising the use and distribution of security circumvention software in some cases. The controversial Azeredo bill, which Molon says “almost criminalised everything on the internet”, was watered down through legislative changes and presidential vetoes, making it less threatening to freedom of expression than originally intended.
Another blow for Marco Civil came in December when Brazil joined Russia and China in signing on to new regulations at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. Opponents of the new regulations worry provisions around spam and security will be used to restrict internet access and freedom of expression online when they come into effect in 2015.
Molon was opposed to the new regulations and says he worked hard to pass Marco Civil before the Dubai summit so that Brazil would have a clear position at the conference. “I regret that we didn’t have this in Dubai. It shows how urgent passing March Civil will be, giving Brazil a much more pioneering position in internet legislation and regulation in the world.”
Molon suggests that global conversation around Marco Civil is helping the country achieve a leading role in internet governance and free expression even though the bill is not yet law. “Because of the kind of legislation we are discussing on the internet, Brazil is occupying a more important role in the world nowadays. This shows our aspirations, which must be confirmed by turning the bill into law.”
Molon is optimistic Marco Civil will finally come to vote in the Chamber of Deputies before July and be approved into law by the end of 2013. If the bill is to guarantee online freedom of expression,which is its most central aim, then recent amendments around net neutrality and intermediary liability must be revised. Backlash to such revisions are likely to stretch the bill through another year of deliberations if Marco Civil is to become the first Internet Bill of Rights and a positive legislative model for other countries.
Brian Pellot is digital policy adviser at Index
