jair bolsonaro – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Brazil’s Governments Amps Up Anti-Free Speech Tactics Ahead Of National Election

from the gotta-keep-the-public-in-check-if-you-want-to-keep-on-winning dept

The Brazilian government — under the “leadership” of Donald Trump Mutual Admiration Society member Jair Bolsonaro — has been steadily cracking down on free speech under the guise of saving the public from “fake news” and other misinformation.

Over the past few years, it has ramped up efforts to eradicate content and reporting that it calls “fake news,” a term that refers to criticism of the ruling party, criticism of the ruling party’s efforts, punching holes in official narratives, or debunking the ruling party’s favored conspiracy theories.

In early 2018, it handed over the job of policing social media platforms to the actual police. The federal police were given permission to bring guns to a word fight to ensure compliance with demands that anything the government declared “fake” be removed as close to immediately as possible. The federal police seemed to relish this new directive, stating that it would continue to police social media whether or not the proposed censorship law was passed by Brazil’s government.

Since then, even more mandates have been handed down to social media services to make it easier for the government to track and trace critics and dissidents. A 2020 “fake news” proposal would have forced service providers to collect and retain a ton of data and metadata indefinitely for examination by the government (which means the federal police) whenever it felt something was “fake” and/or (even more vaguely) threatened national security.

In 2021, the legislation was altered to remove logging requirements and the collection of users’ national ID information before allowing them to open accounts. While that aspect of the proposed legislation got a bit better, the rest of the “fake news” law got much, much worse. It mandated unmasking of users by social media services, granted the government permission to simply shut down troublesome parts of the internet to quell dissent, and allowed the government to pretend IP addresses alone were capable of accurately identifying users who spread so-called “fake news.”

Ahead of a runoff election between far right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro and his opponent, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s government has granted itself an expansion of censorship powers and increased its direct policing of social media content.

The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) unanimously approved rules to maintain the integrity of the upcoming electoral process by fighting against the spread of misinformation that may compromise the fierce presidential campaign between far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro and leftist challenger Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, as well as the elections overall.

The president of the TSE, Minister Alexandre de Moraes, declared that once the collegiate decides that a particular post contains disinformation content, it will be removed, together with all other identical publications. He emphasized that after “[v]erifying that that content has been repeated, there will be no need for a new representation or judicial decision, there will be an extension and immediate withdrawal of these fraudulent news.”

While the involvement of the court suggests an impartial review of alleged “fake news,” the increasing focus on what President Bolsonaro believes is fake news suggests something else. The court is here to serve the laws that are in place, rather than simply protect the citizens of Brazil from government overreach.

There is no carrot for social media services. Only a very expensive stick. Content the court declares illegal needs to be removed within two hours. Services face fines of $19,000/hour for every hour (I assume pro-rated fines are also in place) the content remains visible past that point.

The laws Bolsonaro thought might deter criticism of him and his party are now being used against him, which is its own form of justice, I guess. But it is also limiting political debate and appears to be restricting journalists from reporting on the candidates’ sordid pasts/presents.

The TSE has already ordered some disinformation videos to be taken down, including ones that say Lula consorts with Satan and Bolsonaro embraces cannibalism. The campaigns have also been ordered by the court to pull online ads saying the leftist will legalize abortion and the incumbent entertains pedophilia.

[…]

The Bolsonaro camp has complained that the TSE has told it not to run ads calling Lula “corrupt” and a “thief” because bribery convictions that put him in jail were later annulled by the Supreme Court.

Brazilian broadcasters have also said they have been prohibited from using the words “ex-convict,” “thief” or “corrupt” when speaking about Lula. The broadcaster lobby ABERT protested that such decisions were interfering with freedom of expression.

By contrast, Bolsonaro allies complain that the TSE has not stopped opponents from accusing the president of “genocide” for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic that killed 680,000 Brazilians.

Fun stuff all around. An authoritarian is learning what terrible laws can do when you’re forced to allow your political opponents to avail themselves of the same (dubious) protections. Unfortunately, it’s not just the party in power or the party planning to take power by accusing opponents of cannibalism that are being constrained here. The fines and additional scrutiny are likely provoking proactive content moderation by platforms, which means content that isn’t technically illegal is being buried because it cuts too close the vague language of the law. And journalists are finding it more difficult to report on candidates because the court has declared some words off limits.

Even if Bolsonaro is finding himself a bit hamstrung by his own legal mandates, he at least has to be happy it’s resulted in a pretty effective chilling effect on social media services and journalism outlets. Not every win is a blowout. But a win, no matter how ugly, is still a win.

Filed Under: brazil, elections, fake news, free speech, jair bolsonaro

Brazilian President Bans Social Media Companies From Removing Disinformation & Abuse

from the well-that-will-work-out-just-great dept

Ah, great. Just after Australia made it clear that media organizations are liable for comments on social media (demonstrating one aspect of a world without intermediary liability protections), Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro has announced new social media rules that effectively force social media sites to keep all content online (demonstrating the flipside to a world without intermediary liability protections). The two most important things that Section 230 does — limiting liability for 3rd party intermediaries and freeing websites of liability for moderation choices — each going away completely in two separate countries in the same week.

To be clear, the rule in Brazil can only stay on the books for 120 days — since it’s a “provisional measure” from the President — and if they’re not enacted into law by the Brazilian Congress by then, they’ll expire (and there’s at least some suggestion that the Brazilian Congress has no interest). But, still, these rules are dangerous.

Under the new policy, tech companies can remove posts only if they involve certain topics outlined in the measure, such as nudity, drugs and violence, or if they encourage crime or violate copyrights; to take down others, they must get a court order. That suggests that, in Brazil, tech companies could easily remove a nude photo, but not lies about the coronavirus. The pandemic has been a major topic of disinformation under Mr. Bolsonaro, with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all having removed videos from him that pushed unproven drugs as coronavirus cures.

Imagine needing to get a court order to remove content? That’s ridiculous. Bolsonaro’s government put out a twitter thread (in English) claiming that this is the country “taking the global lead in defending free speech” when the reality is exactly the opposite. Compelled speech, which includes the compelled hosting of speech, is the exact opposite of “defending free speech.” Here’s what the government is saying about this dangerous proposal:

Brazilian government is taking the global lead in defending free speech on social networks and protecting the right of citizens to freedom of thought and expression.

As noted, compelled speech is not defending free speech. And freedom of expression does not mean you get to force someone else to let you speak on their property.

The Provisional Measure issued today by the Brazilian government forbids the removal of content that may result in any kind of “censorship of political, ideological, scientific, artistic or religious order”.

Hilariously, though, it does allow for the removal of copyright infringing material, which already undermines the idea that it does not allow for censorship of “artistic” works.

It is also guaranteed that the social network will have to justify the removal of content under the terms of Brazilian laws. Without a just cause, the social network will have to restore the removed content.

This may be the most pernicious part here, because (as we’ve discussed before), the most bad faith, abusive trolls are the ones who are most likely to demand justification — and then to act shocked and pretend to be offended at claims that they were acting as bad faith, abusive trolls. This provision just allows trolls to make an even bigger nuisance of themselves. Which seems to be exactly what Bolsonaro wants, knowing he has more bad faith, abusive trolls on his side.

This measure forbids selective deplatforming by requiring that social media provide a just cause for the suspension of services and restore access should the suspension be considered unlawful. This measure is based on precedent in Brazilian law and freedom of expression.

Compelled speech is never freedom of expression. As for “precedent,” Brazil once led the way in passing smart internet rules. This makes a mockery of them.

Attention: the law does not prevent the social network from removing content that violates Brazilian law, such as child pornography. The Brazilian government stands for both freedom and democracy!

That’s a pretty damn Orwellian statement right there.

This measure has been emitted as a result of ongoing concern with actions taken by social media groups that have been perceived as harmful to healthy debate and freedom of expression in Brazil, and hope it will serve to help restore online political dialogue in the country.

Basically, we’re doing this because our President is not doing well in the polls leading up to a national election, and has been taking a page from Trump’s playbook and talking about how he can only lose by election fraud — and we need to make sure that social media companies don’t actually stop our bullshit propaganda from spreading widely.

The real question now is how will the social media companies respond. According to the NY Times:

Facebook said that the ?measure significantly hinders our ability to limit abuse on our platforms? and that the company agrees ?with legal experts and specialists who view the measure as a violation of constitutional rights.?

Twitter said the policy transforms existing internet law in Brazil, ?as well as undermines the values and consensus it was built upon.?

YouTube said it was still analyzing the law before making any changes. ?We?ll continue to make clear the importance of our policies, and the risks for our users and creators if we can?t enforce them,? the company said.

There’s also this:

In July, YouTube removed 15 of Mr. Bolsonaro’s videos for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. And late last month, YouTube said that, under orders from a Brazilian court, it had stopped payments to 14 pro-Bolsonaro channels that had spread false information about next year’s presidential elections.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has also been investigating disinformation operations in the country. Mr. Bolsonaro became a target of those investigations last month, and several of his allies have been questioned or detained.

Of course, it seems notable that it was just a few years ago that Brazil arrested a Facebook exec because the company refused to hand over information on WhatsApp users, and has, at times, blocked the entirety of WhatsApp in the country. So, it would be interesting to see what will happen if the companies refuse to follow these ridiculous rules.

But, between this and what happened in Australia, we’ll now get to see two examples of the dangerous situation that happens when you don’t have strong intermediary liability protections, including for the ability to moderate websites how best you see fit.

Filed Under: brazil, compelled speech, content moderation, election misinformation, free speech, jair bolsonaro, marco civil
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

Brazilian Court Refuses To Move Forward With Bogus Charges Against Glenn Greenwald 'For Now'

from the temporary-relief dept

We’ve already discussed how the “cybercrime” charges against Glenn Greenwald in Brazil for his reporting activities were a clear attack on a free press — especially given that a court and the Federal Police had already said he didn’t do anything wrong. In a bit of a temporary reprieve, a judge has now refused to move forward with the charges against Greenwald, but that doesn’t mean things won’t change down the road:

In a decision announced Thursday, Judge Ricardo Augusto Soares Leite ruled that Greenwald?s prosecution would not go forward, but only on account of a previous finding by the Brazilian Supreme Court that The Intercept?s reporting on Operation Car Wash had not transgressed any legal boundaries. In the absence of the injunction issued by a Supreme Court minister that prohibited investigations into Greenwald related to this case, Leite said he would have let the charges against Greenwald move forward. The judge also said that, if the Supreme Court injunction were to be overturned, he would be open to charging Greenwald.

?I decline, for now, to receive the complaint against GLENN GREENWALD, due to the controversy over the extent of the injunction granted by Minister Gilmar Mendes in ADPF n? 601, on 08/24/2019,? Leite wrote, referring to the ruling by Mendes, a Supreme Court minister.

This is, at least, a minor victory, but the situation still remains hugely problematic, and creates a significant chilling effect for journalists, showing just how far the Brazilian government will go to intimidate and silence journalists exposing wrongdoing by the government. Even the fact that the judge is making it clear that without the earlier Supreme Court injunction he’d move forward should be quite chilling in its own right (especially when other journalist are unlikely to have a similar injunction sitting in their pocket).

Make no mistake about it: the Bolsonairo government is deliberately attempting to intimidate the press to push back on investigative reporting into alleged corruption.

Filed Under: brazil, chilling effects, glenn greenwald, jair bolsonaro, press freedoms

Brazil's Government Wants Twitter To Turn Over Data On Users Who Mocked Victim Of Assassination Attempt

from the criminalizing-jerks dept

World governments continue to believe Twitter is the best conduit for oppression. Twitter is the main target of Turkish president Recep Erdogan’s loutish attempts to mute dissent and criticism. Other countries find Twitter’s speedy delivery of punchy content a constant threat to their power and routinely block their citizens’ access to the microblogging site.

Twitter is too compliant too often, so the cycle of dissent-crushing continues. Twitter will push back now and then but, like other service providers, often places market share ahead of protecting users from their encroaching governments.

Brazil’s government was hoping to speak to a more compliant Twitter when complaining about mean tweets, but the call appears to have been answered by the steelier side of its international relations unit.

A judge on Brazil’s top electoral court on Friday ordered Twitter to hand over data of 16 users who celebrated via tweets the near-fatal assassination attempt two weeks ago of far-right, poll-leading presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro.’

Judge Carlos Horbach rejected an appeal from Twitter regarding the request and gave two days for the company to hand over the data, which was requested by the Bolsonaro campaign. The users could potentially face charges under Brazil’s hate crime laws.

Twitter did not immediately reply to a request for comment on the judicial order in its second-biggest market in terms of number of users.

Celebrating the stabbing of a presidential candidate may be tasteless and rude, but it shouldn’t be a crime. But in Brazil, it’s apparently illegal to celebrate the wounding of politicians. This is the danger of hate crime laws — ones often written with an eye on defending the powerless, but deployed in service of the powerful far more often. Bolsonaro may not be president, but he’s ahead in the polls so he’s only a vote away from being Brazil’s leader. A politician with 30 years of service under his belt is the very definition of “powerful.”

Twitter is pushing back this time and appears to have some experience challenging government overreach. If it continues to refuse to turn over the data, it will face fines of $12,000/day, presumably in perpetuity. In addition, the Brazilian version of contempt of court charges could result in the arrest of Brazil-based Twitter execs.

It’s another reminder that it’s good to be king — or at least a step away from the top job. The laws written to serve the public will protect you, even if your personal security team can’t.

Filed Under: brazil, data, jair bolsonaro, privacy, stabbing, subpoena
Companies: twitter