No menu items!

Twitter fears censorship in Brazil

Twitter asked the Brazilian national justice inspector, Luis Felipe Salomão, to reconsider the decision to suspend the social networks of judge Luís Carlos Valois, of the Court of Justice of Amazonas.

According to big tech, the full blocking may characterize “prior censorship of future legal content”.

On January 12, two days after the acts of vandalism registered in Brasilia, Valois wrote: “Did they invade and destroy documents from the National Council of Justice, too? It is an intern who wants to know”.

, Twitter fears censorship in Brazil
Company claims suspension of social media accounts violates freedom of expression (Photo internet reproduction)

The platform understands that the complete blocking of Valois’s account could violate constitutional provisions, considering the possibility of characterizing censorship of legal content existing in the tweets published by the magistrate.

Therefore, they must be protected by freedom of expression.

“Although the existence of past episodes of offenses by a profile may arouse the fear that there will be a recurrence, this hypothesis never authorized or admitted to the public power prior censorship, nor the removal of lawful content — such as that which would be carried out with the complete blocking of a Twitter account”, sustain the big tech lawyers.

Salomão ordered Twitter and Meta, which controls Facebook and Instagram, to immediately suspend Valois’ accounts, under penalty of a fine of R$20,000 (US$3,850) per day.

The Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, enacted by former President Dilma Rousseff in 2014, provides that “blocking content on the internet should be limited to content deemed to be illegal by indicating the specific URL [the access link] of the content deemed to be infringing”.

According to Twitter, the order to remove potentially offensive content should be sent to profiles, not the company.

“In cases like the present one, in which the person responsible for the content is duly identified, the imposition of a possible removal obligation directly on him is the most coherent measure, since, in addition to in no way altering the protection of his rights, it certainly configures an educational measure in order to avoid new conduct of this nature — if it is understood as irregular.”

With information from Revista Oeste

Check out our other content