Senior Brazilian Court Says 'Right To Be Forgotten' Cannot Be Imposed On Search Engines

from the memorable-ruling dept

Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ), the highest court for non-constitutional questions of federal law, has ruled that the "right to be forgotten" -- strictly speaking, the right to be delisted from search results -- cannot be imposed upon Google or other search engines. As a post on Global Voices explains:

According to judiciary rapporteur Nancy Andrighi, the ruling stated that forcing search engines to adjudicate removal requests and remove certain links from search results would give too much responsibility to search engines, effectively making them into digital censors.
We don't know the details of the case, which was held "under secrecy of justice" according to the article. But the Global Voices post points out that there's another important "right to be forgotten" decision coming up in Brazil, this time from the country's top court:
Brazil's Supreme Court -- which is a higher court than the STJ -- will soon hear a different case on the right to be forgotten involving TV Globo, Brazil's largest TV network. The case is brought by relatives of Aida Cury, an 18-year-old girl who was brutally raped and assassinated in 1958, in a case that was never resolved. In 2008 TV Globo broadcasted a story on the case. The relatives sued the network, arguing that the story 'unearthed a painful time for the family' and their lawyers invoked the thesis of the "right to be forgotten".
If Brazil's Supreme Court joins the STJ in refusing to acknowledge a "right to be forgotten" here, this would place the country at odds with South Korea, which has decided to follow the EU in introducing this new right. If nothing else, that discrepancy would demonstrate that it is not a foregone conclusion that other jurisdictions will adopt this particular European innovation.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    cougar tactical (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 3:35am

    tactical clothing usa

    Our selection of tactical pants has something for everyone. For high quality tactical pants that are durable..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 6:50am

      Re: tactical clothing usa

      Paul Levy Discovers Head Of Reputation Management Company Signed Off On Forged/Fraudulent Court Docs

      Techdirt customers stock up on popcorn. Profile Defenders head Richart Ruddie caught without high quality, durable tactical pants.

      San Francisco MTA Forced To Give Free Rides After Network Infected With Ransomware. The hack hasn't just disabled the city's transit systems, but apparently has crippled the SF MTA's payroll systems, email servers, Quickbooks, NextBus operations, various MySQL database servers, and staff training and personal computers for hundreds of employees.

      Riders celebrate. San Francisco MTA officials issued tactical pants.

      Let's just add this to the lexicon.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Eldakka (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 7:15pm

      Re: tactical clothing usa

      Tactical Clothing is now on my "never buy from here" list.

      Thanks for playing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Annonymouse, 29 Nov 2016 @ 4:23am

    Tactical Pants

    Is that a euphemism for diapers?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 12:23pm

      Diapers?

      This is about dating. Knowing when to pant, recognizing hers/his...Learn the techniques and they will stand the test of time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Annonymouse, 29 Nov 2016 @ 4:23am

    Tactical Pants

    Is that a euphemism for diapers?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Annonymouse, 29 Nov 2016 @ 4:23am

    Tactical Pants

    Is that a euphemism for diapers?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 5:57am

    Catch-22 lives!

    So, if they de-list something, but don't do it globally, France or Spain or someone else fines them; if they do de-list it globally, Brazil (and others who follow this rule) fines them...

    The end result being that if Google does "nothing", then 1/2 the world's countries will fine them; if they do "something", then the other 1/2 will fine them... 1/2 of 195 countries fining 4% of their global income, each event will cost 390% of their annual revenue. They should go broke fairly quickly. Which, of course, is the goal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2016 @ 6:07am

      Re: Catch-22 lives!

      ha ha ha FUCK YOU GOOGLE!!!

      is what I would like to say, but yea... this is all bullshit!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 29 Nov 2016 @ 6:41am

      Re: Catch-22 lives!

      Or they can just cease operations on the countries that want delisting and let them use the global solutions instead. I can see how fast blocking Google anywhere would backlash badly.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John David Galt (profile), 3 Dec 2016 @ 3:56pm

      Re: Catch-22 lives!

      If those are really the laws, search engines will have to divide themselves into two groups: one that enforces the RTBF (and cannot be viewed from Brazil), and a second that allows messages to stay in its database indefinitely (and cannot be viewed from Europe or South Korea).

      I think I will stick to search engines in the second group, since they will be more useful to the person searching (especially when doing historical research, a right I would like to preserve and which conflicts with the RTBF).

      I also expect that situations like this one will increase the usefulness of VPNs and bring them more subscribers, until governments figure out that the net community is smarter and more agile than they can ever be.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Home Cooking Is Killing Restaurants
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.