Brazilian Judge Overreacts, Orders Arrest Of Head Of Google's Operations In Brazil Over Refusal To Censor YouTube Video
from the secondary-liabiity dept
We’ve noted in the past that Brazil doesn’t seem to have much of a concept of safe harbors for secondary liability, as it’s blamed Google for actions of its users in the past, even once ordering that YouTube be shut down, or blocked due to a video that someone didn’t want seen. Once more, the Brazilian courts are at it again. Last week, a judge apparently ordered Google to take down a YouTube video that attacked a mayoral candidate for the city of Campo Grande. Google refused, and the judge, Flavio Peren, has responded by ordering all Google services be shut down for 24 hours and that the head of Google’s operations in Brazil, Fabio Jose Silva Coelho, be arrested.
To say that this is an extreme overreaction, would be an understatement. Because of one video, about one local mayoral candidate (which, thanks to this publicity many more people are likely to see), all of Google should be blocked for people in Brazil and the head of Google’s operations in Brazil should be arrested? Talk about a disproportionate response. Not only is it extreme, it makes no sense. Google didn’t create or upload the video. It’s just hosting it. If the video is illegal, blame whoever created it and uploaded it.
Google is appealing the ruling, but it still seems extreme. Google’s transparency report has noted in the past that Brazil is perhaps the most aggressive country when it comes to content removal requests — but that only suggests that someone should be thinking more carefully about how fast the Brazilian courts are to issue these kinds of injunctions without seeming to understand Google’s role.
Filed Under: brazil, censorship, defamation, fabio jose silva coelho, flavio peren, secondary liability, shutdown, youtube
Companies: google
Comments on “Brazilian Judge Overreacts, Orders Arrest Of Head Of Google's Operations In Brazil Over Refusal To Censor YouTube Video”
Wow. Russian prosecutors demands of Youtube blocking almost seem mild in comparison.
More from Reuters
?Brazil judge orders arrest of Google exec over elections law?, Reuters, Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:27pm EDT
Re: More from Reuters
Who’s running this country, a bunch of Communists?
And, The Rest of the Story (in Paul Harvey accent)
Dilma ?Lula? Rousseff, a Marxist revolutionary ran under the Communist Party of Brazil. Lula?s Workers? Party, which includes major communist and Trotskyist factions, has been openly allied to the Communist Party since 1989.
Re: Re: More from Reuters
Your corporatist world is so much surrounded by communists, terrorists, piracy-apoligists and whatever the next ultimate evil simpleton strawman dispensing yourself from actually thinking.
Re: Re: Re: More from Reuters
Yea, you’re right.
Those 100M+ that were slaughterer by Communists(Stalin, Mao & Pol Pot), mainly students and intellects, were just “strawman” and didn’t really count. You’re the anti-thinking fuckup.
Capitalism (real Capitalism, not the Crony type) is the only way to ensure the world doesn’t go through another Communist Slaughter House.
Re: Re: Re:2 More from Reuters
Do you take into account the millions that died of hunger and sickness because of the profits of the capitalists? Or those killed in the long list of wars started by and for the capital and it?s interests?
Or the millions of communists and socialists that were arrested, tortured and murdered by capitalism?s “paladins”, just for daring to think differently? Or do you really think they were all serial killers, hell bent on killing millions?
I bet you dont. You would rather take a couple examples that are hyped by the anti-communist propaganda and pretend that those examples represent the essence of communism, or it?s necessary consequences, and forget about everything else. As if communism was about murdering people, and not a social and economical theory…
But you HAVE to, right? After all, you do need at least a leg to stand on…
Google lost safe harbour when it refused to take the video down.
You are painting Brazil as the next China while the actions taken where completely on par with US standards and a lot more justified than the piracy crusade in the USA.
The video in question violated Brazilian electoral law, and that is a big thing, not just a civil mater like copyright infringement. So the judge ordered it taken down, which Google execs refused. At this point, they lost any claim of safe harbour and are responsible for the material they are publishing, so the arrest and site block are justified.
Jeez, Brazil, give it a rest!
You need to become more civilized, like the US and only arrest and prosecute the poor, blacks and foreign-born people and then only for petty crimes like stealing food or copyright violation. Oh, and give the finger to international law and the international community wherever possible. And always blame someone else for your problems.
Leave the wealthy business guys alone for pity’s sake.
Quid Pro Quo
Google should shut down all of its services to Brazil then for another 48-72 hours, including gmail, google apps, google+, google talk, etc. Let’s then see just how fast the mob takes to hoist that judge by his own petard, or otherwise draw, quarter, and hang him out to dry…
Also, the claim that Brazil is the most aggressive country when it comes to content removal requests has been debunked several times.
Most of those requests refer to the social networking site Orkut which is the most used social network in Brazil and apparently only popular in Brazil. The largest share of those are fake profile removal requests because of impersonation or defamation.
Re: Rush Limbaugh debunks itself
“Most of those requests refer to the social networking site Orkut which is the most used social network in Brazil and apparently only popular in Brazil.” – Oh I see. So they dont count?
“The largest share of those are fake profile removal requests because of impersonation or defamation.” – Yeah sure all those are valid.
Citation needed.
Re: Re: Rush Limbaugh debunks itself
They count, but they need to be analyzed in the proper context. It is simple statistics, if most of the users in Orkut are Brazilian, it is not surprising that most of the take down requests are from Brazil.
And Nice straw-man by implying that those take-down requests for impersonation where not valid. I’m sure you don’t use Orkut so let me explain how it works: unlike Facebook (or even Google+), Google is very liberal in allowing people to create fake profiles impersonating someone and it is really difficult to remove it unless you go to court (or the media, that also work). So I wouldn’t be surprised if nearly all those where valid.
Also, the article mentioned it was an overreaction because the video was ?about one local mayoral candidate?. That is bad rhetoric I didn’t expected. All the elections in Brazil deserve the same protection from election fraud and election crime, it doesn’t make any difference if it is an election for president of Brazil or election for mayor of a tinny city in the middle of nowhere. This was not a civil case that can be fixed with a fine, this is a criminal issue.
Re: Re:
Also, the article mentioned it was an overreaction because the video was ?about one local mayoral candidate?. That is bad rhetoric I didn’t expected. All the elections in Brazil deserve the same protection from election fraud and election crime, it doesn’t make any difference if it is an election for president of Brazil or election for mayor of a tinny city in the middle of nowhere. This was not a civil case that can be fixed with a fine, this is a criminal issue.
How is this “election fraud”? Seriously. Here in the US we see people say bogus crap about politicians all the time. And we trust that the electorate are not complete morons.
Are you honestly suggesting that Brazilians aren’t smart enough to filter out someone saying something untrue?
Re: Re: Re:
“Are you honestly suggesting that Brazilians aren’t smart enough to filter out someone saying something untrue?”
IMO many US citizens aren’t smart enough to filter out somone saying something untrue, so I would think it is the same case in Brazil.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or spell “someone”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“IMO many US citizens aren’t smart enough to filter out somone saying something untrue, so I would think it is the same case in Brazil.”
Brazil has Republicans?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yes, and democrats that think their party is actually different than that of the republicans
Re: Re: Re:
” Here in the US “
That is just the point – your looking at this from the point of view from US election laws. This was not in the US. It was in Brazil. Brazilian election law prohibits “trickery, montage, or other feature of audio or video in any way that degrades or ridicules a candidate, party or coalition or to deliver a program that has this effect”.
So Google has a choice (like they did with China) – Follow the local law, or accept the consequences.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can someone explain to me, in terms that laymen can understand, what would be Google’s motivation to even have an office in other countries. It only obligates them to follow local laws, which eventually will be impossible. I mean, they already can’t have offices in countries that ruled by Islamic law. I would only have them in the US, that way you only have one set of laws to worry about. And they don’t need an office to collect revenue from advertising. So what do these offices contribute that could possibly be worth the hassle?
Re: Re: Re:
Are you honestly suggesting that Brazilians aren’t smart enough to filter out someone saying something untrue?
I don’t know. Your side’s lies convinced a lot of people that Justin Bieber would be imprisoned if SOPA passed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, that was just wishful thinking from both sides.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I don’t know. Your side’s lies convinced a lot of people that Justin Bieber would be imprisoned if SOPA passed.”
…or if good taste was the standard for videos…
Re: Re: Re:
What I’m saying is that running a smear campaign video on a candidate is an election crime in Brazil, no matter if the election is for mayor, governor or president.
The video was declared unlawful, but Google Brasil’s executive(s) chose to ignore a judicial order to remove an illegal video from its site.
Re: Re: Re:
“How is this “election fraud”? Seriously. Here in the US we see people say bogus crap about politicians all the time. And we trust that the electorate are not complete morons.”
Ahh, the arrogant American speaks. Mike, when will you learn that US law doesn’t apply everywhere? When will you learn that the standards set by the US constitution are not those of other countries?
You rant up and down about ICE and such going after people outside of the US, but you seem determined to cram everyone into the US constitution. Why?
“Are you honestly suggesting that Brazilians aren’t smart enough to filter out someone saying something untrue?”
Are you honestly suggesting the American way is the only way?
Re: Re: Re:
You mean, something untrue like all those weapons of mass destruction?
The point is this: there is a law over here (Im in Brazil, BTW). It is NOT the US law. It is different. Is it better or worse? Who can say?
So, in virtue of said law, the court ordered the offensive video taken down. Wether the court was right or wrong is immaterial. The court legally decided and issued the order (that was given in limine, in order to prevent probable damage, until everything was sorted out).
Google should have taken down the video and appealed the order. They didnt. They refused to comply with the order and, therefore, with our law. And this is a crime over here.
Google doesnt have the right to choose wich law and wich court orders it wants to follow. Neither you have the right to condem a law you dont even know unsing such a fallacious argument like “are brazillians not smart enough…”, specially after the WMDs issue (and oh so many others!)
AFP reports Google appeal denied
According to an AFP story, ?Google Brazil president faces arrest order? (datelined 26 Sep 2012), Google’s appeal was rejected by a second judge.
This news seems similar to a Portugese language story also reported by AFP.
Via Google Translate:
They should have just gave in to the censorship and removed it.
Why in the hell would I say that?
Because the second they censored it about another 40,000 copies would be up the next day.
Once it’s on the internet it’s here to stay and that’s just the way it should be. “They’re all evil” We cannot let people like Chris “Sucking people off for power” kill one of the most important technologies in our entire history.
Google refused, and the judge, Flavio Peren, has responded by ordering all Google services be shut down for 24 hours and that the head of Google’s operations in Brazil, Fabio Jose Silva Coelho, be arrested.
If only there was some kind of computer network that would allow users in Brazil to access Google services without Google actually having to have servers in Brazil. A “web” if you will…
Someone should really invent that…
Network level blocking
According to Portuguese language stories at globo.com and midiamax, the Brazilian telecommunications company Embratel will carry out the order of the Electoral Court of Mato Grosso do Sul by blocking Google for 24 hours.
Via Google Translate:
Arrest!
?Google?s President of Brazil Operations arrested for failing to remove YouTube videos? by Anna Heim, TNW, 26 Sep 2012
Appeals Exhausted
?YouTube In Brazil? statement by Fabio Coelho, Country Director, Google Brazil, September 27, 2012:
(H/T The Next Web)
More from Reuters
Communism is a failed .. "theory." The promise of Communism’s "upopia" from people serving the people never delivers, as any attempt for implement always devolves into socialist authoritarian oppression and, yes, murder in order to "enforce" adherence to the rules put in place by those scumbags whom inevitably rise to power.
"Making profits" isn’t mutually exclusive to Capitalism – just take a look at how the wealthy elite in "communist" societies accumulate and hoard wealth in order to maintain the poor class of "have-nots", as those same ‘class’ of scumbags work to do the same in Every market, targeting Capitalist markets due to the intrinsic nature that ANYONE can participate without discrimination .. until the political cronies begin to manipulate such Capitalist market, changing it into a socialist market which is no longer a free market, thus Not Real Capitalism.
A "real" Capitalist market requires a free market to work. Screw that up, and you get oppression. Another main reason why Real Capitalism works, is that the system has checks and balances for evil people or their business practices. If you don’t agree with the ethos practices of a business, you can simply deprive them of their financial gain by either spending your money with the competitor, or by creating you own competing business in the Free Market and make money or get Yourself out of poverty. "Poor" is a state of mind, not a limit of ability. Easy.
However, existing monopolies or government regulation which becomes partial to particular players in a respective market is, by definition, NOT a Free Market, and therefore NOT real Capitalism – no matter How much you want that definition to mean something different, nor how much communist sympathizers infiltrate education or media systems to propagandize and spin the opposite.