Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Brazil, Google Fined For Content of Anonymous Posting

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the hey-you-put-up-that-blank-wall dept.

Social Networks 484

Sabriel writes "Google's appeal against a 2008 defamation ruling in Brazil over an anonymous posting on Orkut has been denied, and Google has been fined $8,500US ($9,100) for the crime of being vandalized. In the words of the judge, Alvimar de Avila, 'By making space available on virtual networking sites, in which users can post any type of message without any checks beforehand, with offensive and injurious content, and, in many cases, of unknown origin, [Google] assumes the risk of causing damage [to other people].' I'd submit a blunter opinion of this farce, but it might be considered offensive and injurious content. ... I wonder if he's related to the judge in Italy?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wow (0, Offtopic)

fred911 (83970) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981894)

where they gunna get so much cash at one time.....

      move on

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31981968)

I don't know, you could bulldoze a few favellas for that kind of money.

The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (4, Insightful)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981896)

So... Brazil doesn't believe in freedom of expression on the Internet, nor do they subscribe to the "post anything, trust nothing" philosophy of the Internet. What a shame.

Yay America.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (0, Flamebait)

DMiax (915735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982236)

I sincerely hope that US people are less dickheaded than you. In civil law countries (like Italy too) the judges have little choice in applying the law.

If I yell in the streets something libelous I am responsible, even if someone else told me first. The same applies to Google and the judges have no power to make exceptions. Which, if you think is a good way to make the law equal for everyone.

Now, wearing my reasonable person hat I would say that it is actually better that Google took the bullet, since they are a foreign company and there is little damage they can receive from Brazilian (and italian) justice. They will defend themselves better than anyone and may publicize the issue so that the parliament can change the law for online postings. Civil law is slow to answer to changes in society, because it values consistency and equality more. There is more good and bad in there than can be said in a Slashdot comment.

I will also admit that this is too ideal of a situation for Italy. We suck as a country and having a mafia supported/supporting government kind of kills any hope for a good reform...

But wearing the pissed off person hat, you are an asshole and can shove your nationalistic pride up your ass. You can live in a place where corporations can do anything and people can do nothing. Call it freedom if you want and go away.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (1, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982270)

Pissed off? Who's pissed off? Asshole nationalistic pride? Whose feeling are being hurt, here, exactly?

Psychological projection is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings. Peter Gay describes it as "the operation of expelling feelings or wishes the individual finds wholly unacceptable--too shameful, too obscene, too dangerous--by attributing them to another."--Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982500)

Hahaha. You said "gay".

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982282)

That's about stupid. In effect, WalMart should assume responsibility for that mouthy punk who used WalMart's intercom system to tell all black people to leave the store. WalMart is racist, because some kid used their intercom to make a racial statement. Extending that idea just a little bit - if you owned a shopping mall, and some skin heads staged a protest on your property, (with or without your permission) then you would be responsible for all the hate speech that resulted.

The fact is, many nations, including mine, have fascist laws that need to be changed. We need more activists working to make free speech a reality, and stop holding web sites and site administrators responsible for the rantings of ignoramuses.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (4, Interesting)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982476)

It's worse than that - if you own a house and someone spray-paints a libelous message on one of your walls, you could be held responsible. This ruling makes even UK libel laws seem sane in comparison.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (0, Redundant)

JambisJubilee (784493) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982290)

What is your point? That he doesn't have any right to criticize Brazil's policies on the internet because the US (while having more internet freedom) has issues with corporate power? Dude, get your head out of your ass.

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (4, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982484)

You can live in a place where corporations can do anything and people can do nothing.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't live in China ....

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (5, Interesting)

Mortaegus (1688452) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982398)

The problem with this trend is that the internet isn't like real life. In real life, stealing your information is difficult. The thief would have to dig through your trash and other distasteful things, maybe even break into your house. And if they wanted to see what kinds of things you were doing, or what you liked to buy, maybe so they could sell that information to an advertising company; they would have to hire a private investigator.

And that's just for you. What about everyone else?

The internet, and the way most people use it, leaves us all much more exposed. The simplest tracking cookie can tell someone everywhere you've been, from the items pages of amazon to your private social networking profile. Anonymity on the internet keeps us safe by making it that much harder to mine accurate information.

Remember that (Brazilian) woman who had her insurance revoked after the insurer learned that she had pictures on (a friend's) facebook account, wherein those pictures she was smiling and having a good time, so she (obviously) must be cured of her major depression. Reality is much different. The not-drug treatment for depression is socialization, and everyone smiles for the camera. I hope she sued the balls off of that company, but I never followed up on that story.

This is just an example of the damage that a company (which most people would agree is a legal one) can cause by abusing the exposure people face on the internet. What would less scrupulous individuals do if the internet lost anonymity? I'm sure it wouldn't affect anyone using it criminally. They'd simply get a proxy service or make their own. Suddenly, your information would become even more valuable, and you might get blamed for crimes you didn't commit if someone used your information to slander another person.

The internet allows anonymity for a reason. It must stay free and open and anonymous.

Demanding to change that is folly, and the laws that allow for this kind of criminalization of the service providers are trying to do just that.

What good is freedom of expression (2, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982460)

if your not willing to back it with responsibility of that expression?

In other words, Freedom of Expression does not mean freedom to slander. Too many people use anonymity to attack others so as to deny others the ability to respond in defense. Sorry, but calling someone a pedo and then hiding behind an anonymous id is just horseshit.

Either stand behind your words or don't bother. We don't need Freedom of Expression becoming a forum troll's fallback. Living in a world of false accusations and slander without recourse is not one I care for.

Yeah I can fully understand being anonymous versus an totalitarian government, but not attacking other citizens. Let alone Google knows the law in Brazil and its not allowed, how else was the judge to rule?

Re:The Internet is less free... in Brazil. (1)

mSparks43 (757109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982534)

If I was a cynical man I would suspect this is just google trying to advertise orkut.

Although, The actual text used was:
o farsante, o namorado da sacristã, o pedófilo, roubo e sexo na igreja, o ladrão que tem amante

actually sounds like someone who was abused by him having a beef.....

Probable end result (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31981900)

Probable end result from retarded rulings like this?

GeoIP-based blocks - if you live in a country with retarded judges, you get blocked from a bunch of services that like to shield themselves against lawsuits like this.

Re:Probable end result (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982164)

Except that over half of Orkut users are Brazilian, so that would be a pretty stupid move.

Re:Probable end result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982482)

Over half?
  ALL YOUR SOCIAL NETWORKS ARE BELONG TO US!

But yeah...Its ridiculous! Those old, jurassic judges shouldnt be poking where they dont know.

Re:Probable end result (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982170)

More probable: GeoIP based moderation. If you live in a place with retarded judges, then comments you see would have been withheld for moderation prior to you seeing them.

Re:Probable end result (2, Interesting)

eugene2k (1213062) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982440)

How do you premoderate a resource with millions of users? More probable is google and other hosting providers and ISPs lobbying for laws that specifically make them not liable for the actions of the users. That is of course if google can't appeal anymore. Otherwise an appeal seems more probable.

Re:Probable end result (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982472)

How do you premoderate a resource with millions of users?

Welcome to slashdot.

::Message Redacted:: (3, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981904)

||this message has been removed until it can be checked by Slashdot admins||

Just like (2, Funny)

asterix_2k1 (781702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981908)

Slashdot should be held responsible for idiotic comments on its pages. Oh, and 3rd post!

Re:Just like (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981946)

Stupidity is not illegal, or the jails would really be overcrowding.

Re:Just like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982066)

However the consequences of stupidity are very often subject to the rule of law...

Duty of Care on Web 2.0? (1)

MessyBlob (1191033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981918)

Yes, this is all about anonymous postings, but surely anyone can make up an identity online? Law has a habit of applying judgements to other cases (in the same country), and encourages prosecutors to take a punt in other countries. In what other cases would this frustrate the everyday running of the web? ISPs failing to moderate comments from their customers? Allowing file sharing?

Re:Duty of Care on Web 2.0? (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982072)

Yes, this is all about anonymous postings, but surely anyone can make up an identity online?

I guess the reasoning (such that there is any) here would be that by deliberately creating a false identity the poster is circumventing any information storing the service provider has which would be another offence. With anonymous posting the user is simply using a facility that is open to them.

To my mind, and presumably many others this makes no difference - or at least no difference with respect to Google's culpability - but this judge disagrees.

Re:Duty of Care on Web 2.0? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982390)

I encourage you to find my address. You may find my name. You might even find my city. But unless you grab my IP address and submit a request to the appropriate authorities, you'll never find out who I am.

So I am essentially anonymous. Knowing my name and city aren't unique enough to actually identify me.

Not that anyone actually cares who I am. But maybe they would if I said I was molested by a 54 year old priest whose initials are J.R.

aussie_a

P.S. Slashdot's lawyers might want to get ready for an incoming lawsuit.

Policing comments (5, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981940)

I'm not agreeing with this judge at all, please don't assume that for a minute.

However, we are entering a very precarious phase of the internet. As more and more of our user-generated content goes online and into "cloud" storage, we are turning over huge amounts of private information and possibly illegal data to these hosting companies. The push to upload data is growing, and the counter-push to demand responsibility of the hosts is also growing.

The first volley was almost 10 years ago when Napster was taken down for enabling illegal filesharing. Lately The Pirate Bay has been under attack for the same thing. Now we see Google under attack for providing a platform for someone to make illegal statements. The trend is to demand that those that make services available also police those services.

And those making the demands have been winning.

The only true longterm solution is to force encryption and invite-only data access. This pushes us away from an open Internet which Sir Berners-Lee envisioned and into the same parochial networked clusters that we had before.

It's sad, but as long as there are people out there who think that morality can be legislated, then we will forever have the problem of needing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Re:Policing comments (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982008)

The only true longterm solution is to force encryption and invite-only data access.

I like to think the longterm solution will stop being so as soon as some way of ISP-less internet technology appears.

However, I must admit it's just hope.

Hope for those who come after us.

mesh networks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982410)

yeah, ive hoped that wimax like range (~5km ~ 1mbit) could work in a p2p symmetric manner and allow mesh networks in cities (or even some rural areas).

but surely we will still need fat pipes under the sea to get packets between continents, and thats going to cost. so perhaps in the future we will just pay for the peering agreement, and isp's will be virtualised.

+ caching.

Re:Policing comments (4, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982256)

FTR, the correct format is "Sir Tim" or "Sir Tim Berners-Lee"; Knights are referred to by their First name or Fullname but never just their Surname.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982444)

[citation needed]

Re:Policing comments (3, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982364)

I say decentralize the web. Make it so that websites are stored "on the cloud", with dozens, or even hundreds, of redundant copies broken into small chunks on random people's computers. Make publishing these sites easy, so anyone can do it, removing the need for centralized holding sites like Youtube, blogspot.com, etc. Reduce ISPs to being a purely city-to-city pipe, with intra-city connections being done through the individual computers themselves.

Freenet [freenetproject.org] is already doing a lot of this, if we can just make it more mainstream...

copyright violations (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981950)

can anyone shed any light on the state of copyright in brazil? if the hosting party takes all the heat internet users of brazil have a get out of jail free card.

Re:copyright violations (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982118)

Nobody said the user was free from punishment. They can punish both (one for posting, the other for allowing).

I guess I need to move to Brazil (0)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981960)

And become a judge, it must be really easy.

Reading a bulletin or post in a foreign country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982016)

If I'm offended by what someone wrote in a foreign country, do I establish trade relations to extradite offenders into my jurisdiction where I was not injurred at all?

What Trade or Treaty agreement covers this kind of matter? Why are the courts come together, for policing authority on behalf of one another as not The 48 united States of America but the United States of South America as was before the Continentals hosted the United States of North America?

Because someone makes a treaty that compels me to report anyone to them, doesn't mean I am cognizant and accept them as other than trespass. I will shoot you for pursuing slander that you earned, because you are a dirty witch about doing as what others have published about you. If someone said somthing good about that Brazilian judge, then is it witchcraft on my part if they do good as I say. Perverts, all of them.

Re:Reading a bulletin or post in a foreign country (2, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982144)

Google Inc. is a registered company in Brazil, so it's bound by Brazilian law. They have fined a Brazilian company, which happens to be a subsidiary of a company from the US.

Please update summary: "victim" was a priest (4, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981970)

Let's be clear that in Brazil, separation of Church and State means "opposite sides of the confession box".

Re:Please update summary: "victim" was a priest (2, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982068)

Let's be clear that in Brazil, separation of Church and State means "opposite sides of the confession box".

And judges are Maxwell's demons?

Re:Please update summary: "victim" was a priest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982134)

Re:Please update summary: "victim" was a priest
Let's be clear that in Brazil, separation of Church and State means "opposite sides of the confession box".

He's also a paedophile .... oh no what's that Brazilian judge sues rules slashdot responsible for writings of anonymous coward.

Someone should paint obscenities... (5, Interesting)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31981986)

Someone should spray obscenities on the wall of the judge's house.
Then someone else should sue him for providing the space...

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (1)

M3.14 (1616191) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982046)

Exactly my thought. Additionally they can sue spray manufacturers for providing the spray ... etc. One could even profit from such stupid decisions.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (1)

MessyBlob (1191033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982094)

Then he would sue the manufacturers of his garden gate for not stopping vandals, and they would counter-sue for not evaluating fit-for-purpose before purchase. The judge would counter-sue for failing to provide information that the gate was not suitable for stopping vandals, ...

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982128)

That would probably fall under some variant of judical immunity...

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982150)

Actually, they should sue the builder as well. Then sue God for making the builder.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982408)

Why not sue his parents first? They're more directly responsible for making the builder.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982160)

One thing to consider is that Google is encouraging people to voice their opinions (and read others' opinions) on their space (website). The judge is not encouraging people to voice their opinions on the walls of his house.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982428)

Well if you listen to the words of a certain Sheikh having a house that isn't protected by a large fence with barbed wire is tantamount to leaving food out on the street. Just as a cat will come and eat that food, so will a vandal come and deface your property. If the judge doesn't want to be held liable for what people do to his property, he should protect it better.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982462)

The judge is not encouraging people to voice their opinions on the walls of his house.

With idiotic rulings like this, he is actually doing just that.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (2, Interesting)

darinfp (907671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982246)

Nope.. It's more like a company sets up a graffiti wall on a major road, gets companies to sponsor it to make money, then invites people to write whatever they want. The company then denies all knowledge of what the people write and refuses to check it at any time to ensure people aren't using it for illegal purposes.

Not saying it's right.. Just saying it's not as simple as you think.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (1)

lordmetroid (708723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982304)

I suppose you can check millions of daily posts for rudeness. Google is acting as a carrier and the carrier immunity still applies(the one that says do not kill the carrier). As long as Google do not discriminate or monitor the messages they carry they got immunity.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982416)

If you can't uphold your legal obligations when running a business then you don't get to run the business. You don't get laws waived.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982448)

Does Brazil have such a law? If you're going to do business in these countries and establish local subsidiaries, you have to accept their rules. If you don't like it, pull out and encourage the international community to put pressure on totalitarian states to change their ways. Of course, whether or not giving carriers immunity is an important issue is up for debate.

Re:Someone should paint obscenities... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982406)

Actually for that to work the judge would have to say anyone is free to come and spray graffiti on his house before he would be liable for anything written there. I don't really get what the big fuss is about here, freedom of expression and freedom of speech have never in the past nor present ever meant freedom from prosecution for commiting slander/defamation or breaking other such laws while exerting your freedom.

to paraphrase... (3, Funny)

Norfair (845108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982020)

In Soviet Brazil, Anonymous Coward pwns Google!

Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous (4, Insightful)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982024)

When will people understand that freedom of speech is inherently linked to offense and injury on the side of the receiving part of any 'verbal abuse' or 'insults'... This is not something you can (or need to) protect against without sacrificing (or eroding) freedom of speech!
I hope judges in other countries (and perhaps Brazil too) will realize that this is not a matter of law, but a matter of common decency. If you insult someone willingly you're a dick and that's it, no need for laws, no need for convictions and most of all no need for a jihad or any physical harm.

Oh yeah, and people who believe they need (or have right to) legal protection against insults are dumbasses who are willing to sacrifice one of our basic rights for their own personal little feel-good gain. Grow some fucking self-confidence and just don't dignify some things with a response! Every time I hear someone proclaim 'the should be a law against saying X' a little part of me dies...

Re:Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982078)

Every time I hear someone proclaim 'the should be a law against saying X' a little part of me dies...

You clearly need a law against saying "there should be a law againt saying".

Re:Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982148)

Every time I hear someone proclaim 'the should be a law against saying X' a little part of me dies...

You clearly need a law against saying "there should be a law againt saying".

Would this be the first law that breaks itself?

Re:Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982240)

You clearly found the paradox proving why no such laws should ever exists. Otherwise the whole legal system will collapse in on itself and disappear in a puff of purple smoke.

Re:Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous (1)

drewhk (1744562) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982338)

Naah, lawyers don't grok mathematical logic. They will apply the paradoxical law without problem.

Freedom of Speech == USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982212)

Freedom of speech is an American right - it is not so in UK, and in most other countries.

There are of course advantages - but there are also serious disadvantages. That is the reason that most other countries have strong libel laws.

Sadly you can't be further from the truth... (3, Insightful)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982298)

The USA has:
- The most different lobby groups trying to get laws eroding free speech (left, right, liberal, Christian, Muslim... whatever. All 'for' free speech but against 'X being said because *that* is harmful').
- By far the most lawsuits against people who express opinions (anonymous or not, satire or not), sometimes with a conviction.
- Very strong censoring, some self-inflicted under pressure (like Comedy Central), some because of lobby groups (can't say 'fuck' on TV).

Re:Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous (1)

iris-n (1276146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982360)

I hope judges in other countries (and perhaps Brazil too) will realize that this is not a matter of law

I think you misunderstand the role of a judge.

Re:Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous (1, Interesting)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982446)

If you insult someone willingly you're a dick and that's it, no need for laws, no need for convictions and most of all no need for a jihad or any physical harm.

It is not always that simple, insulting or lieing about someone in a public forum can have series consequences for the receiving party. People are not dumbasses for not wanting to have their reputation tainted, more than a few people and businesses have been ruined simply by their reputation, and as such there most definitely is a need for laws for people that insult/slander/malign people in a public forum, it can have severe consequences for the person being maligned and most definitely should also have consequences for the dick doing it. You need to grow and realise that in the real world actions have consequences.

Re:Freedom of Speech == Offensive & Injurous (4, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982466)

I hope your never falsely accused of a terrible crime. Although if you are, and the allegation is made public, you will find out first hand just how much your damage your version of freedom of speech entails.

Screaming "Rapist" or "Paedophile" at innocent people isn't something that should be protected in my opinion. But then I'm Australian where freedom of speech isn't explicitly guaranteed. So I'm sure you'll dismiss my opinion as that of an ignorant savage. But hey, go team America!

Unrelated News (1)

Derosian (943622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982070)

In unrelated news countries around the world start fining companies fees just because they can, also they like money!

Anonymity is forbidden in Brazil (5, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982088)

Guys, before you get all hot under the collar, please keep in mind that anonymity is forbidden in Brazil by her Federal Constitution; Title II, Chapter 1, Article 5, Paragraph 4:

IV - the expression of thought is free, anonymity being forbidden;

X - the privacy, private life, honour and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for property or moral damages resulting from their violation is ensured;

So, anonymously posting defaming material against someone else violates at least two of the victim's constitutionally guaranteed civil rights in Brazil.

Re:Anonymity is forbidden in Brazil (3, Interesting)

bircho (559727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982196)

IAAB (I am a Brazilian). Sure, anonimous posting is forbidden by Constitution. So is interest rates greater than 12%/year. It's more complicated than that. I think judges have a problem understanding how internet works and are trying to not lose power (like when a judge tried to block all of youtube because Cicarelli's sex video: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/06/youtube-wins-privacy-case-against-brazilian-supermodel.ars [arstechnica.com] ). I feel sorry for Google.

Re:Anonymity is forbidden in Brazil (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982414)

If this holds up, it hurts Brazilians a lot more than it hurts Google.

It is inconvenient for Google, but they don't derive a lot of their revenue from user comments.

Re:Anonymity is forbidden in Brazil (1)

instantkamera (919463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982200)

So if I (in Brazil) think you're an asshole, and I don't say so, I'm adhering to X. But in so doing, I have violated IV because I was not free to express my thoughts.
Sup wit dat?

Disclaimer:
I don't think the parent is an asshole, yet.

Re:Anonymity is forbidden in Brazil (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982252)

Freedom of Speech does not apply to defaming, libelous, slanderous, or other illegal acts. Freedom of Speech is not Freedom to say whatever the hell you want.

You're free to call someone an asshole to their face. That is not anonymous. What you are not free to do is commit acts of libel, slander, or defamation, or do them anonymously.

Re:Anonymity is forbidden in Brazil (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982254)

You only violate IV if you post anonymously.

Just write a letter; I, instantkamera, think you are an asshole.

Signed,
instantkamera

Re:Anonymity is forbidden in Brazil (2, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982232)

Two? Is "no anonymity for others" a right?

Besides, the problem is not so much prohibiting defamation, as it is to put the onus on every site that allows user-created content. Not only I find it an abuse (it's not Google fault someone posted illegal content there), but unfeasible: do they expect *every website on the web* to block all public content until manual moderation?! It's obviously impossible.

It would be fun to see a widespread movement from worldwide (read: not subject to Brazilian law) persons defaming people on hundreds or thousands of Brazilian websites). Maybe when the values reached the millions of reais they would understand that enforcing anti-defamation laws in the Internet is impossible.

Re:Anonymity is forbidden in Brazil (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982492)

How does that work? Before you stand at the edge of the street to give forth an expression of thought must you scream "My name is Bob Smith, I live at 24 Garden Terrace and I was born on the 17th of February, 1976 at 12:05pm"?

Someone should cover the judges house (1, Redundant)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982108)

Someone should anonymously cover the judges house with graffiti, then sue him for defamation

Wall and 2D surfaces now illegal in Brazil. (1, Redundant)

Tei (520358) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982132)

Everyone that have a wall, or any 2D surface in Brazil (no movie pun intended) has better demolishing it, since it can be used to "an post any type of message without any checks beforehand, ".

This is ridiculous.

that does it, (0, Troll)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982140)

I'm adding Brazil to the blacklist, along with UK, Australia, China, Iran, and a few other places hell-bent on destroying free speech.

Re:that does it, (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982166)

Oh no! Not the blacklist!

Re:that does it, (2, Insightful)

OrwellianLurker (1739950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982198)

I'm adding Brazil to the blacklist, along with UK, Australia, China, Iran, and a few other places hell-bent on destroying free speech.

You can add America and most of our allies once ACTA is signed.

Re:that does it, (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982224)

How come the US is not on your blacklist? With initiatives like the Fairness Doctrine, ACTA, requiring permits to assemble, and all the other crap that goes on, what makes you think the various governments of the US want to keep free speech?

Re:that does it, (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982334)

Don't forget about Sweden. We've had laws that basically say the same thing as this ruling for ages.

Re:that does it, (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982412)

Most countries do not have a constitution that allows free speech ..... ...the USA does and still restricts it more than some others who do not have this written into their constitution

Your blacklist should start with the USA .... and probably go on to include most countries

Re:that does it, (1, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982524)

How is that "freed speech zone" thing working out that was around in the time of Bill Clinton's reign and then famously used by George W. Bush? Has the saviour Obama stopped them yet? Or has he continued to use it as a useful tool to further his political career?

Re:that does it, (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982542)

This has nothing to do with free speech though so why are you blacklisting Brazil? free speech is a right in Bazil, anonymity while doing so is not though. Australia also provides free speech, but the government wants to censor the shit out of the internet so they probably still deserve the blacklist. People need to learn to seperate free speech from the consequences of the content, just because you have the right to express yourself doesn't automatically invalidate laws that protect people from slander, hate speech and other such laws.

Details? (3, Insightful)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982184)

For one time I RTFA before posting, it has little or no details about the causes.

I mean, the devil lies in the details... There is a law in Brazil that allows only registered posts? Or that IPs are logged? If Google operated their service disregarding the requirements of the country, then they got themselves in trouble. Or it was that the judge just make that decision by himself?

For an example of what it could be, I just want to recall that the "italian judge" mentioned in the summary fined Google not because someone had put a video of several people harassing and beating a mentally handicaped person. The real reason is that Google did refuse to retire something like that when they were notified that it was there, and they only did retire it when they were threatened. Of course, then TFS just wrote that Google was fined "because someone had uploaded the video".

If we have to debate about facts, it would be nice if we are informed of them with a little more depth.

Re:Details? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982210)

>> There is a law in Brazil that allows only registered posts?

Yes, the Federal Constitution of Brazil forbids anonymity in speech.

Re:Details? (1)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982530)

And if I anonymously graffiti someone's wall in Brazil, does the Federal Constitution of Brazil hold the wall's owner accountable for my action if I can't be identified?

Re:Details? (1)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982478)

Yes, one of the posters here has pointed out that Brazil forbids anonymous speech, which I was not aware of when I made the submission*. However, Orkut requires you to sign in - unless there's some "anonymous coward" option I missed - so the poster must have supplied an email address that the Brazilian authorities could not or did not trace. How is that Google's fault? There are no magic wands, and this is still a blatant case of "shoot the messenger".

And regarding the Italian case, they didn't just fine Google, they convicted four Google employees - the second article I linked to goes into some detail, includes personal statements from two of those convicted, and also has this comment from a Google VP: "To be clear, none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video. They did not appear in it, film it, upload it or review it. None of them know the people involved or were even aware of the video's existence until after it was removed." That's not just shooting the messenger, that's shooting the messenger's family and neighbours.

*(how does that even work?! do they fine the telephone company whenever somebody makes an anonymous call? do they arrest the owners of walls whenever somebody paints graffiti? it is like forbidding the tide from coming in or the sun from rising in the morning)

Re:Details? (1)

acid06 (917409) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982520)

Either way, the mere fact that anonymous speech is forbidden should be attacked.
This effectively makes it impossible to have real free speech and the pressure should come from outside as, unfortunately, Brazilian citizens don't give a damn about this.

Keep in mind this can potentially affect all of you, as Brazil and BRIC countries in general are gaining momentum in the post-crisis economic scenario.

Is lying an absolute right? (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982192)

A lie can cause serious damage to someone. Some neighbours of mine had their home vandalised because they had been falsely accused of being involved in animal experimentation. If you post such a lie deliberately then aren't you in some way responsible for the harm suffered?

But Google is offering to allow people to post whatever they want maliciously, and offering to hide their identity from everyone - even themselves. If Google is going to allow people to do this, then why are they not taking on responsibility for the harm themselves?

Re:Is lying an absolute right? (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982262)

A lie can cause serious damage to someone. Some neighbours of mine had their home vandalised because they had been falsely accused

      So the lie jumped out and vandalized their house, did it?

Re:Is lying an absolute right? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982538)

You're right. If I walk into a bar and say to someone "Could you please kill my wife? We have $100,000 in the safe with the combination for the safe being 4 7 2 6?" Clearly the person has done nothing wrong after all, its not like that information killed his wife. It was the man with the gun who killed the wife. Hell, the widowed husband could then sue the man with the gun for wrongful death and recoup some of the money he lost during the murder.

Re:Is lying an absolute right? (3, Insightful)

instantkamera (919463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982272)

Im sure there are cases where libel/slander comes into play (I can never get them straight),
but isn't the real issue that people are taking the law into their own hands?
Vigilante justice is a bad idea (as well as being illegal) for just that reason.
Even if what was said about your neighbors was true, those vandals broke the law. Why didnt they ask questions before flying off the handle?

Re:Is lying an absolute right? (2, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982292)

A lie can cause serious damage to someone. Some neighbours of mine had their home vandalised because they had been falsely accused of being involved in animal experimentation. If you post such a lie deliberately then aren't you in some way responsible for the harm suffered? But Google is offering to allow people to post whatever they want maliciously, and offering to hide their identity from everyone - even themselves. If Google is going to allow people to do this, then why are they not taking on responsibility for the harm themselves?

By that argument the mail service should open and check all letters and the phone company listen to all phone calls. You can use both to spread malicious lies anonymously.

Re:Is lying an absolute right? (0)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982306)

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Libel is more of a problem with broadcast media than one-to-one.

Re:Is lying an absolute right? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982426)

...and if the lies about your neighbours were spread by people telephoning, or mailing, each other then the common carrier status would exempt them from responsibility

If they have no knowledge of what is said then they cannot be held responsible ... and the sheer volume of traffic means they cannot police it ...

In Soviet Brazil.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982222)

...Google fines YOU!!!!

Or maybe a car analogy (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982384)

In other words: if you own a wall and someone scribbles 'whoever reads this, sucks' on it, you're liable. I can see that, but it's not how, at the moment, most of the western world is put together. Walls would have to be extremely clean, for example.

From Brazil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31982394)

I really think that every country has their stupid things and stupid people. Every law (specially those developed years and years a go) are subject to interpretation. Unfortunately this judge doesn't know how Internet works and is trying to prevent child porn and other stuff in the wrong way. Its a matter of time for theses judges "learn" how Internet works, at least to prevent stupid decisions against Google or any other company with services in Brazil.

Flaming a little bit, it is not only from Brazil that we see lots a lots of stupid things happening. So these guys that says "there is no freedom of speech in Brazil" really don't know what they are talking about. Yes we do have stupid Judges, criminals, drugs, bad politicians. But from where I can see, in CNN, BBC, and all other medias, everybody does have this right ? And maybe that countries that don't have are just too small, and too easy to be a little more "perfect" ;). 2 million people in my "neighborhood". 20 in city. I think that my neighborhood is twice the size of many countries in Europe.

Cya

This is what I've been talking about (1)

acid06 (917409) | more than 4 years ago | (#31982498)

In a previous story [slashdot.org] , I commented [slashdot.org] about how censorship in Brazil should get more international attention.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. In Brazil there are no safe harbor provisions for ISPs and judges just refuse to acknowledge the fact that Google Brazil is a subsidiary and might not have any control about Orkut, which is hosted in US ground.

If you think about it, it's actually worse than China in some aspects: it's as if China ordered companies to censor information outside of China, i.e., not even someone in America would be able to search for information regarding the Tiananmen Square massacre. Otherwise, they would fine these companies.

These issues should be brought to the table when considering requests coming from Brazil and the other BRIC countries for additional power in groups such as G20. Our economy might withstand crisis such as the last one better than yours, however, this comes at cost of severily reduced civil liberties.
Make sure this is the example you and your leaders want to follow before praising Brazilian efforts.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Brazilian, living in Brazil)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?