Post by xyz3400 on Feb 20, 2024 7:20:35 GMT
The collision between freedom of expression and personal rights must be resolved, as a rule, by rectification, right of reply or civil reparation. In this scenario, deleting a profile from social networks is not appropriate, as it would represent a violation of the principle of freedom of thought and expression. reproduction Facebook will not have to delete Instagram profile that defamed a company This was the understanding of the 6th Private Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Justice when exempting Facebook from the obligation to delete an Instagram profile for defamation against a company. In the first instance, Facebook, which owns Instagram, was ordered to delete the page that made the offenses. The company appealed to the TJ-SP, which reformed part of the sentence.
According to the rapporteur, judge Rodolfo Pellizari, “determining the removal of content from the air is the ultima ratio in cases of civil liability for content published on the internet, being one of the reasons why the STF has even been more flexible in admitting complaint regarding freedom of expression, due to the persistent violation of this right in Brazilian culture, including through judicial means”. In this sense, the rapporteur Honduras Mobile Number List highlighted that the company went to court against the content of messages sent by an Instragam profile via direct , that is, directly to the private message boxes of some users, not being public posts. These, said Pellizari, can be deleted by Facebook by indicating the URLs. “The elements capable of justifying the complete removal of the profile by the provider are absent, as the potential harm to the author has not been demonstrated.
Now, there were no publications on this profile criticizing the author. The account is private and currently has 10 publications, the content of which is only known by those who follow it (83 followers)”, he added. Because the defamatory messages were sent privately, Pellizari stated that it was not a case of forcing Facebook to delete the account, but rather of holding the owner of the profile in question directly responsible: “Jurisdictional provision, in these cases, must be restricted ordering the defendant Facebook to provide the necessary data to identify the person responsible for the profile, as approved by the original magistrate”. Such a measure, for the judge, is “fully satisfactory” in protecting the company's rights, which may file another action against the profile owner to obtain the right of response or compensation.
According to the rapporteur, judge Rodolfo Pellizari, “determining the removal of content from the air is the ultima ratio in cases of civil liability for content published on the internet, being one of the reasons why the STF has even been more flexible in admitting complaint regarding freedom of expression, due to the persistent violation of this right in Brazilian culture, including through judicial means”. In this sense, the rapporteur Honduras Mobile Number List highlighted that the company went to court against the content of messages sent by an Instragam profile via direct , that is, directly to the private message boxes of some users, not being public posts. These, said Pellizari, can be deleted by Facebook by indicating the URLs. “The elements capable of justifying the complete removal of the profile by the provider are absent, as the potential harm to the author has not been demonstrated.
Now, there were no publications on this profile criticizing the author. The account is private and currently has 10 publications, the content of which is only known by those who follow it (83 followers)”, he added. Because the defamatory messages were sent privately, Pellizari stated that it was not a case of forcing Facebook to delete the account, but rather of holding the owner of the profile in question directly responsible: “Jurisdictional provision, in these cases, must be restricted ordering the defendant Facebook to provide the necessary data to identify the person responsible for the profile, as approved by the original magistrate”. Such a measure, for the judge, is “fully satisfactory” in protecting the company's rights, which may file another action against the profile owner to obtain the right of response or compensation.