!"
#
!
$
Amongitsmany features,theInternetworksasacatalystfordiscourse in and between societiesaround theworld,allowingawiderangeofpeople to instantly send and receiveinformation relatively unfiltered bytraditi on-alpowerstructures.AsAmerican legalscholarJack Balkin putsit,“the digitalrevolution makespossiblewidespread culturalparticipation and i n-teraction thatpreviously could nothave existed on the same scale,”1e n-couraging usto think ofthe changesthatthe Internethasbroughtabout in termsofsalience,ratherthan novelty — in termsofenabling cultural and politicalparticipation on alargerscalethan otherwisepossible,rather than creating entirely new formsofculturalparticipation orinteraction.2
In turn,thisenablescitizensto haveavoiceand engagein nationaland i n-ternationaldebatesaround issuesthatforvariousreasonsmay justnotbe addressed by traditionalmedia in a transparentmanner(ifaddressed at all).
%&' ( ) * + ,
Brazilto politicaldeclarationsin the United States,we are constantly r e-minded thatthe Internetis,indeed,an importanttoolfororganizing, problematizingand disseminatinginformation.
Having accessto the Internet,however,may notbe enough to make surethatinformation flowsin an idealmanner.Influenceon people’sabil -ity to communicateseemsto beincreasinglyrelevantwhen itcomesto free speech battles.W hilethevirtualenvironmentprovidesmassivepotential forfreespeech to blossom,3itsown existenceposesarealthreatto de
mo-cratic interaction,asnew digitaltechnologiesmay be used to strengthen old formsofcontrol.4
The debate overfreedom ofspeech frequently revolves around the question ofwhethergovernmentsrestrictthe rightsofcitizensto express theirpoliticalviewsthrough differenttypesofmedia.People tend to be-lieve thatthisisnotan issue in Brazil,with the generalperception being thatthegovernmentrespectsfreedom ofspeech in mosttraditionalcases.
In thischapterwearguethatonlinefreedom ofspeech isunderthreat in Brazil,and thatcontroloverprivate Internetserviceshasbeen one of the mosteffective waysto undermine thisfreedom.Thishashappened both through overreach by courts,using the traditionaltoolsattheirdis -posal— such asinjunctions— aswellasthrough controlofintermediar -ies,which isthe kind of‘new school’censorship,5which Kaminskiand
Prakash highlightin the opening chapterofthisbook:lessobvious,out -sourced,indirect.Becauseitiscamouflaged and notcalled whatitreallyis, such new schoolcensorship goesunnoticed and islittle debated in the mainstream media.However,itisn’tnew schoolcensorship alonethatisa threatto Internetspeech.Thecasestudieswediscussin thischaptershow thatnew schoolcensorship and old schoolcensorship are notrivalrous, butindeed,can actin tandem and work in unison when itcomesto stifling speech.
hon-- %&&
ourisofutmostimportancefortheeffectiveunderstandingofnotonlythe possibilities afforded by virtualsocialnetworks,butalso the way old schooland new schoolcensorship work.
TheBrazilian Constitution,in thefundamentalrightschapterstates:
Article5.Allpersonsareequalbeforethelaw,withoutanydistinction what -soever,Braziliansandforeignersresidingin thecountrybeingensuredofinviol -abilityoftherighttolife,toliberty,toequality,tosecurityand toproperty,on thefollowingterms:
...
XI.Theexpression ofintellectual,artistic,scientific,and communications activitiesisfree,independentlyofcensorshiporlicense.6
Moreover,asaresponse to the authoritarian military dictatorship that ruled the country from 1964 to 1985,the Constitution containsa special chapteron ‘socialcommunication’,wherein article220 states:
Themanifestation ofthought,thecreation,theexpression and theinfor ma-tion,in anyform,processormedia shallnotbesubjecttoanyrestriction,with dueregardtotheprovisionsofthisconstitution.
Paragraph 1:No law shallcontain any provision which may representa hindrancetofullfreedom ofpress.
Paragraph 2:Anyand allcensorship ofa political,ideologicaland artistic natureisforbidden.
These are constitutionalvalues,embedded in the very being ofour young Brazilian democracy.We thusunderstand thatfreedom ofspeech translatesinto atleasttwo differenttypesofguarantees:(a)the rightto freely expressideas,politicalpointsofview,and differentformsofopi n-ion,withouttherisk ofbeingpunished fordefendingordisseminatingany specificidea;and (b)theability ofindividualsand groupsto build on each other’sideas,promotingand disseminatingknowledge.
%&. ( ) * + ,
likeFacebook and Flickr:whileon theonehand they merelyhostdifferent mediaand materials,and linksto contenthosted on third-party websites; on the otherhand,they are also online community platformsthatallow people to communicate and pursue common interestsand activities be-cause ofthe toolsthey provide.Within such spaces,freedom ofexpres -sion findsa fertile ground.Butwhile these toolsand spacesempower peopleto bettercommunicate,theyarealso potentialrisks.
To illustratehow difficultthejudicialelaboration ofconstitutionalval -uesisbecoming in theinformation age,thischapterpresentstwo casesin which aBrazilian courtwasasked to balancetheprotection offreespeech with the preservation ofan individual’simage,honourand dignity.We willalso examine some ofthe potentialdangers inherentin those de -cisions,and the harmsthey could bring to online interactions,given that the restrictionsthey impose limitaccessto the digitalinfrastructure on a largerscale,threateningfreespeech.
CassiusAbraham MendesHaddad isa Brazilian lawyer.He livesin Limeira,acountrysidetown in thestateofSão Paulo,with 276,000 inha b-itants.Heisan independentattorney,workingwith awideand diversified range ofareas,from civilto criminallaw.Before he became a lawyerin 2012,Mr.Haddad used to beabusinessman.
In 2008,Mr.Haddad gathered a poolofinvestorsto modernize the Limeira shopping mall,the largestin the region,buthis plan failed. However,in the aftermath ofthatfailed venture,Mr.Haddad came upon evidence that,according to him,showed thatlocalmunicipalauthorities were conspiring with some businessmen to pilferpublic money from the municipality usingtheshoppingmall’sexpansion asareason.Mr.Haddad believed thatthiswasthereason behind an expropriation proceeding that resulted in the condemnation and dispossession ofhousesfrom several familiesaround the shopping mall,adding up to an areaof10,000 square meters.Themunicipality wassetto donatethisland — freeofcost— to theshoppingmallventure,asan incentiveto new businessesin town.
- %&/
behind the shopping mallexpansion.He argued thatthe condemnation processand donation ofthe realestate were flawed,asnone ofthe busi -nessmen involved in theventurelostany oftheirown property duringthe expropriation proceedings,even though someofthem owned land in the areasthatweresubjectto expropriation.
In 2010,Mr.Haddad felthe had gathered enough documentsand wit -nessesto provideasound basisforhisaccusations,so hesoughtouta pub-licprosecutor,LuizAlberto SegallaBevilacqua,and requested him to filea lawsuitagainsttheCity Hallformisappropriation ofpublicfunds,bribery, conspiracy and othersimilarcrimes.Mr.Bevilacqua,in theposition ofthe publicprosecutor,with jurisdiction to actin defenceofthecity'sinterests, believed thattherewasnotenough evidenceto sustain Mr.Haddad'salle g-ationsin a lawsuit,and dismissed the complaint.Outraged by that,Mr. Haddad appealed to the Prosecutors’National Counsel (“Conselho Nacionaldo Ministério Público”),challenging Mr.Bevilacqua’sdecision, buttheretoo hewasthwarted.
In 2012,Mr.Haddad becamealawyerand decided to filealawsuit7ac
-cusing Limeira’smayorofmisappropriation ofpublic funds,conspiracy and bribery,challenging thevalidity ofthecontractsthatwereestablished during thattime and questioning Mr.Bevilacqua’sdecision notto file a case back in 2008.W hen Mr.Bevilacqua learned aboutthe lawsuit,he wentto thelocalpressto gethissideofthestory told.Mr.Bevilacquaa c-cused Mr.Haddad ofbeing a“politicalterrorist”,and oflying and seeking publicattention,and engaging in thisvilification campaign dueto apolit -icalinterestin thenextlocalelections.
In the following months,a Twitteraccountnamed “@cassiushaddad” wascreated and tweetsstarted to pop up.Below areafew examplesofthe translated tweets:
— Dr.LuizAlbertoSegalla Bevilacquaisbiasedandsupportscorruption.
— Astheold saying aboutcorrupted prosecutorsand judgesgoes:To my friends,everything;tomyenemies,thelaw.ProsecutorsandJudgesofLimeira supportcorruption.
%.0 ( ) * + ,
Mr.Bevilacquaconsidered such tweetsadirectattack on hishonouras aprosecutorand hisdignity aspublicfigurein thecity,and filed acriminal complaint.Mr.Haddad wascharged with defamation.
In his defence,Mr.Haddad claimed he was notthe author ofthe tweets.Accordingto him,someoneelsehad created theaccount,usinghis name.In turn,he registered the incidentbefore the city'spolice and r e-quested the accountbe deleted,which happened five daysafterhisc om-plaint.Ifthe story were to end here,thiswould be justanotherordinary defamation case.
Butthe prosecutorin charge ofthe criminalcomplaintagainstMr. Haddad requested the CriminalCourtofLimeira to grantan injunction preventing Mr.Haddad from accessing allsocialnetworksavailableon the Internet,asa meansofforestalling him from speaking outonline against Mr.Bevilacqua.And even though the dispute arose because ofa Twitter account,the prosecution requested the courtto explicitly declare several socialnetworks to be off-limits forMr.Haddad — Facebook,Twitter, Orkut,MySpace,Flixster,Linkedin and Tagged — even though Mr.Ha d-dad wasnoteven aregistered useron mostofthesocialnetwork listed by theprosecutor,havingaccountson onlyFacebook and Twitter.8
The decision ofthe criminalcourtjudge,Henrique Alves Correa Iatarola,ispriceless,to say the least:notonly did he grantan injunction barring Mr.Haddad from multiple social networks,he additionally ordered the defendantto reportallhisonline activitiesto the courtevery month.9 The courtdidn’tstop there:italso required allthe socialnet
-workscited in thecaseto producemonthly reportsaboutthestatusofMr. Haddad’saccounts(and,presumably,non-accounts)and send them to the court.10
UnderBrazilian criminallaw,failureto comply with thetermsofsuch an injunction could beseen ascontemptofcourt,and subjectthedefe nd-antto imprisonment.In otherwords,Mr.Haddad could besentto jailfor simplylogginginto hisFacebook account.
-- %.%
cipalityand livesin aneighbourhood called VilaMariana.
In June 2011,Mr.Oliveira started a socialmovementcalled O Outro Lado do Muro — Intervenção Coletiva (“The OtherSide ofthe Wall— Collective Intervention”),which soughtto fosterdebate aboutthe roleof property developers and large construction projects in the city ofSão Paulo.In oneintervention,Mr.Oliveirasetup laddersoutsideafew c on-struction sitesand invited pedestriansto look in and leave theirimpres -sionson ablackboard,alongwith theirimpressionsofwhatwould an ideal city should be like.Thisinitiative broughttogethera numberofc on-cerned citizenswho togetherchosesomerealestateventuresto monitor.
One ofMr.Oliveira'smain concernswasa specific venture located at Conselheiro RodriguesAlvesStreetin São Paulo,which wasto bebuiltby Construtora MofarrejVila Madalena SPE EmpreendimentosImobiliários S/A (hereinafter“Mofarrej”).The land on which the venture wasto be located wasdeemed aresidentialareaforoverfifty years,dueto envir on-mentalissues— a stream flowsin the property — butMoffarejhad ob-tained alicenceto build abusinesscentrethere.
Mr.Oliveiraand fellow activistsstarted to investigatethereasonswhy alicenceto build acommercialventureon land with environmentalissues wasgranted in thefirstplace.Thegroup wasableto obtain officialdoc u-mentsand talk to afew city officials,which led them to believethattheli -cencewasgranted pursuantto thepaymentofabribebyMofarrej.
Aftertheinvestigation,Mr.Oliveiraorganized aseriesofproteststhat took placeoutsidetheconstruction site,and also created aFacebook page to mobilizeagainsttheventureand againstMofarrej.Through Facebook, he explained the case,provided detailsaboutthe investigation and the documentscollected,and encouraged people to engage in adebate about the city,in theirneighbourhood,aswellasthatparticularMofarrejve n-ture.Mr.Oliveiraalso succeeded in gathering fivethousand signaturesto requestthe licence be reviewed.The initiative wasso big thatnot-for -profitorganizations,such asMovimento Defenda São Paulo,offered to help with furtherinvestigationsand with rallying.
%.1 ( ) * + ,
operations,both physically and on Facebook.Thecompany explicitly r e-quested an injunction preventingMr.Oliveirafrom postinganycomments regarding theventureorMofarrejon Facebook duringtheentirecourseof thelawsuit.
The injunction wasgranted,and failure to comply subjectsMr.Oli -veirato adaily fineofR$10,000 (roughly US$ 4,000).11Mr.Oliveiraiscur
-rentlyfightingthecourtorder.
Jack Balkin presentsfivecharacteristicsofInternetspeech thatenhance democratic culture in modern societies.12 First,speech on the Internet
ranges over every possible subjectand mode ofexpression (serious to frivolous),reflecting populartaste and opinions.13 Second,the Internet,
taken asa whole,isfullofinnovation,enabling people to develop new technologies,business models,structures ofcommunication,etc.,and these are key to changesin the waysthatindividualsinteractwith each other.14 Third,the creativity dependson the ability to build on whathas comebeforeand the Internetaboon forthat.Thevery natureofHTML code,Balkin points out,stimulates copying,imitation and linking.15 Fourth,Internetspeech isparticipatory and interactive.People are not passive,ascompared to radio ortelevision.Rather,they go online and search,publish new content,and discussboth seriousand frivolousissues. Internetspeech is,thus,a socialactivity thatinvolvesexchanging experi -encesand actionsbetween users.16And fifth,theInternetallowspeopleto
create communities,culturesand subcultures.17 Itisfreedom ofspeech
thatenablesusto build thesecommunities,to participatein theformation ofculture,to engage in public discourse and debate,allofwhich in turn shapeusasindividuals.Internetspeech isthusnotonlyapartofan "inter -active cycle ofsocialexchange,and socialparticipation",butalso vitalas partofan individual'sself-realization.
- %.2
purpose ofpoliticalprotesting,butalso as a way for interacting with friendsand family,commercialadvertising,and a myriad ofotherpur -poses.Virtualspacesare increasingly crucialto human interaction asa whole.
In both caseswe describe here,the rulingsshow thatcourtsare not ready to dealwith theInternet.Notonly judgesshow lack ofundersta nd-ing ofthe purposesofdifferentnetworksand,consequently,theirpote n-tialforharm;butthey also disregard theInternetasalegitimatespacefor theexerciseoffreespeech.
Two questionscometo mind:(a)istherealessdrasticway forcourtsto limitthe potentialharm to plaintiffs’image and dignity?;and (b)ifwe don’tfighttheselegalrestraints,which ignorethevaluesembodied by the way people areusing the Internettoday forpoliticalengagementand e m-powerment,wouldn'twebemissing on thedevelopmentofanew culture ofdemocracyin Brazil:adigitaldemocracy?
Both courtdecisionsseem to harbouranarrow vision aboutthebe ne-fitsofenhancing Internetspeech asa toolforthe growth ofdemocratic cultureand seem to adoptavery conservativeapproach when itcomesto balancing the rightoffree speech and the protection ofthe honourand dignity ofindividuals.Because they restrictcommunicationsand social participation,don'ttheserecentdevelopmentspointto anew form ofce n-sorship?
%.3 ( ) * + ,
1 Jack M.Balkin,DigitalSpeechandDemocraticCulture:A TheoryofFreedom ofExpression forthe Information Society,79N.Y.U.L.REV.1,2(2004).
2 Id.
3 SeeBalkin,supranote1,at3(“Freedom ofspeech allowsordinarypeopleto participatefreely in thespread ofideasand in thecreation ofmeaningsthat,in turn,help constitutethem as persons.A democraticcultureisdemocraticin thesensethateveryone— notjustpolitical, economicorculturalelites— hasafairchanceto participatein theproduction ofculture, and in thedevelopmentoftheideasand meaningsthatconstitutethem and thecommunities and sub-communitiesto which theybelong.").
4 SeeYochaiBenkler,Freedom in Systems,127HARV.L.REV.F.351,355(2014),(concurringwith
Jack Balkin,infranote4,that“thevery systemsthatenablenew formsofspeech also enable new formsofsurveillanceand censorship,and viceversa.”).
5 SeegenerallyJack Balkin,Old-School/New-SchoolSpeechRegulation,127HARV.L.REV.2296 (2014),availableathttp://harvardlawreview.org/2014/06/old-schoolnew-school-speec h-regulation/.
6 RepúblicaFederativado BrasilConstituição tit.II,ch.1,art.5,translation availableathttp:// english.tse.jus.br/arquivos/federal-constitution.
7 T.J.S.P.,Ação Pop.No.24.2012.8.26.0320.
8 Theinjunction requestshowsthattheprosecutorfailed to acknowledgethedifferentpur -posesserved byeach socialnetwork and theconsequentpotential(orlack ofpotential)for damageMr.Bevilacqua’simage.Forinstance,in thecaseofamusic-oriented socialnetwork, likeMySpace,therisk ofdamageto Mr.Bevilaqua’simageand dignityispractically non-existent.
9 T.J.S.P.,Rep.Crim.No.3002031-98.2013.8.26.0320,JuizdeDireito:HenriqueAlvesCorrea Iatarola,04.04.2013,(on filewith theauthors).
10 Id.
11 T.J.S.P.,Proc.Ord.No.1008543-15.2013.8.26.0100,JuizdeDireito:Adilson Aparecido Ro-driguesCruz,25.10.2011,T.J.S.P.J.,availableathttp://esaj.tjsp.jus.br/cpo/pg/show.do? processo.codigo=2S0007V4O0000&processo.foro=100.
12 Balkin,supranote1,at31–32. 13 Id.at31.
14 Id.
