By Johanna Mendelson Forman
Google’s Chief Executive in Brazil, Fabio Jose Silva Coehlo, was arrested for refusing to remove a YouTube video that allegedly defamed a mayoral candidate. The judge who ordered the arrest said that by hosting the defamatory video the company was in violation of Brazil’s electoral laws. Specifically, Section 243 of the law makes defamation a serious offense, punishable by a fine and arrest. However, shooting the messenger, the Google hosting service, does not always solve the problem.
Democratic Brazil suffers antiquated internet laws that do not protect free speech, which is surprising, given the country’s reputation as an open society with high tolerance for the absurd. According to the Citizens Media Law Project, Brazilian courts have ordered more than 194 removals of offensive materials on the Google hosted website, more than any other country where the company operates. Unlike the U.S. or other Western states, Brazil has no safe harbor laws to protect internet service providers who host offensive material. This certainly leaves internet companies at risk. When a company like Google hosts a video the producer is anonymous, and thus only the Google website is exposed. (For the record, Google Brazil voluntarily removed the offensive video, Innocence of Muslims, after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi!)
The specific video that targeted a mayoral candidate in Sao Paulo was ruled to be insulting and defamatory. Judge Flavio Peren from the state of Mato Grosso noted that Google had committed “the crime of “disobedience” by refusing to take down the offensive material. The judge’s opinion noted that the videos violated the “dignity” of people running for office. The judge also ordered a 24 hour shut down of the Google website. What is striking in this case is that the election law’s definition of “defamation” is hard to reconcile with the modern political campaign environment. Moreover, the selective prosecution of Google for hosting also leaves a company at the mercy of subjective decision-making in the absence of modern laws about internet governance.
Ironically, a double standard exists when it comes to self-defamation, if one considers that in October’s municipal elections there are many candidates on official ballots for mayor or city council races that use such names as Batman, Daniel the Cuckold, or Wolverine. The use of these names is also a violation of copyright and trademarked property. Yet no one has challenged placing these names on the ballots, making a mockery of the electoral process
Incidents like this one will continue unless Brazil’s legislature works on a complete reform of its internet hosting laws. For a country with 73 million computer users, a complete modernization of the legal framework is long overdue when it comes to cyberspace. What is troubling in this case is that the judiciary is being forced to choose between a basic democratic right—free expression—and an outdated law that turns democracy on its head.
Johanna Mendelson Forman is a Senior Associate with the Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.
Originally published by VOXXI as “Google Brazil: Free speech in the balance“
One Trackback
[…] the issues here go beyond court ruling, copyright infringement and videos that violate election voting laws. This is an issue of who owns […]