Atlético Paranaense from Curitiba, one of Brazil’s top flight teams and Brazilian champions in 2001, banned press conferences and independent media work during their weekly activities and on match days.

On top of that, no staff member — including players and managers — of Atlético is officially allowed to speak to the media. The club says that radio stations and newspapers should pay for the right to report on the club, along the lines of fees television stations pay to broadcast matches.

However, a 2011 federal law forbids football clubs from charging money for radio broadcasts.

The club’s policy is that all information about the team will be funneled through official channels ike the team’s website, online radio and TV. Independent journalists will be limited to background information and off-the-record statements.

It’s a common practice in Brazil’s football industry to have at least two press conferences a week with players and managers and regular media activity on match days. It’s also usual in the country to have people from clubs on sport shows airing on TV and radio, which makes Atlético’s move a rare one in Brazilian football.

“The content we offer is not of a primary importance to the audience, it’s pure entertainment. So we don’t feel obliged to let anyone enter the club’s premises and profit from our business without paying for it, like radio stations do”, says Mauro Holzmann, Atlético’s director of communications and marketing.

“Less than thirty years ago it was OK for televisions to broadcast football matches without paying for it, but now it’s unthinkable to do so. So why don’t the other media pay for it? We know it’s a paradigm shift, but maybe other clubs will do this too”, Holzmann told Index on Censorship.

Broadcasting of matches became another problematic issue. Atlético did not reach an agreement for Paraná’s State Championship with TV rights holders RPC  – a local affiliate of national media giant Rede Globo. Because of that, fans were not be able to watch the games unless they bought tickets and went to the pitch.

“This is a complete enclosure that ends up damaging everybody”, says Leonardo Bonasolli, reporter at Gazeta do Povo, Curitiba’s biggest newspaper.

“The club loses exposure at the media, and exposure means more sponsorship money. The press loses the chance of providing a different, independent point of view and, of course, fans also lose because they are not interested only on the team’s monolithic media work”, Bonasolli told Index on Censorship.

Atlético’s chairman Mário Celso Petraglia said the State Championship – which runs from January until early May – is not profitable, so he would not only deny TV broadcasting but would also put the Under-23 team on the pitch, while the main squad would have an extended pre-season in Europe until the start of the Brazilian Championship.

About the media ban, Petraglia said in a rare interview that the club “reached a limit” in its relationship with the press, and that journalists “should be neutral and conduct [their work] in an ethical and moral way”, something he believes does not happen in Paraná.

Petraglia’s disturbed relationship with the press has a long history – it started in the late 1990s, when he was involved in a bribery scheme with referees to fix match results. He was neither convicted nor banned because of the episode.

Atlético first tried to charge money from radios to broadcast its games in 2008. However, a judge ruled the fees were illegal and radio stations have since been given stadium access on match days.

Atlético’s media ban was effectively shut down in early May, during the State Championship finals against historic rivals Coritiba. Rede Globo, which also owns the TV rights of the Brazilian Championship, made a deal with Atlético to allow both matches to be aired. It also closed an agreement for broadcasting the State Championship in 2014 and 2015.

After the game, Atlético’s players gave interviews normally, even to outlets other than Globo, as if there was no ban.

Paraná’s Sports Journalists Association believes Atlético’s attitude towards general media won’t change much, even with the upcoming Brazilian Championship, which draws national attention to all clubs.

“When the Brazilian championship starts, Atlético will be forced to speak to Globo, and they will also feel pressed to hold conferences after matches, because there will be so many journalists from the whole country. But I doubt they will allow other radio or TV stations inside the club during the week, so Globo will do all interviews and share their material to the other outlets”, says the Association’s president, Isaías Bessa.

Local journalists also say the club’s lack of transparency damages Curitiba’s position as one of the host cities of the 2014 World Cup – Atlético’s stadium will a venue. Renovations on the stadium are said to be the most behind schedule of any of the 12 World Cup venues, but independent media was never allowed inside after the works began.

Atlético’s Mauro Holzmann firmly says the stadium will be ready by the end of 2013, like FIFA demands, and blames all delays on “Brazil’s bureaucracy” to deal with public financing.

The post Brazil loves football, but Atlético Paranaense doesn’t have the hots for the press appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The country’s 2002 reformed Civil Code made it mandatory for works of a biographical nature – films, books or otherwise – to have prior authorization from the subject of the work before public release. As a result, most biographies published in Brazil end up being eulogistic to the people they portray.

Critics contend that the current legal framework causes editors to practice self-censorship. “Instead of only taking care of the literary quality of the work, editors end up being busy with judicial problems and carrying out a self-censorship that is harmful to the industry”, says Sônia Machado Jardim, president of Brazil’s National Union of Book (Sindicato Nacional dos Editores de Livros, Snel).

Sônia Machado Jardim supports a change to Brazilian law, which would allow publication of biographies without prior approval of the subject. Photo: www.snel.org.br

Jardim also says that many relatives of people portrayed in biographies try to take advantage of the need of previous approval to demand huge amounts of money, making it impossible to have the works published.

Some controversial cases have become notorious in Brazil. Singer Roberto Carlos, one of the most popular artists in the past 50 years, not only barred in the 2007 circulation of a biography written by Paulo Cesar de Araújo – the copies were already printed and ready to go to the stores – but also banned the publishing of a master’s degree thesis on Jovem Guarda, the musical movement he was part of in the mid 1960s. Before that, in the 1980s, Carlos also prevented the publication of magazine articles about him.

The biography of former footballer and two time World Cup champion Garrincha, who died in 1983, provides another infamous example. Written by journalist Ruy Castro, the book was withdrawn from circulation in 1995 because of a lawsuit filed by Garrincha’s relatives. The author appealed and his work eventually went back on sale.

In 2011, controversies like these led deputy Newton Lima (Workers’ Party) from São Paulo to draft legistlation that changes the Civil Code and annuls the need for prior authorization of biographies from public people – like politicians and media celebrities.

“When people go into public life, they give up part of their right for privacy. Of course one does not want to deprive public people of all their privacy, but it certainly gets diminished”, says the draft bill’s rapporteur in the Congress, deputy Alessandro Molon (Workers’ Party) from Rio de Janeiro.

“It doesn’t mean that the modified law will make it free for anyone to publish anything about anybody. If the person portrayed in a biography feels attacked, he or she can go to the court against the author, and the author himself is still responsible to answer for his work”, says the deputy.

The Chamber of Deputies’ Constitution and Justice Committee passed the draft bill conclusively in early April, which meant it should have gone straight to a Senate vote. However, deputy Marcos Rogério (PDT Party) from the state of Rondônia filed a petition against the proposed bill, making it mandatory that the deputies voted before senators, which slowed down the approval process.

Rogério justified his petition by saying the draft bill’s language left some issues unaddressed.

“What is ‘public dimension’ anyway? It’s a relative concept. Someone can write, for example, a biography about a city counselor either accusing him or promoting him electorally. It can be used for good or for evil. Constitution protects both freedom of expression and privacy”, the deputy said during a Constitution and Justice Committee debate.

Molon regrets this reaction to the draft bill. “While this bill is not voted by the deputies, it cannot go on, and now we depend on the Chamber of Deputies’ speaker’s good will to put it on the voting schedule”, he says. Marcos Rogério could not be reached by Index on Censorship to comment about this subject.

Aside from the new biographies bill, a group of publishers filed a direct action of unconstitutionality with the supreme federal court in July 2012. In their filing, the book firms argue that the Civil Code clause governing prior authorization generates censorship, which is prohibited in Brazil.

Opinions of the suit are to be issued by Brazil’s Solicitor-General Luis Inácio Adams and Attorney-General Roberto Gurgel. Minister Carmem Lúcia is responsible for ruling about the case in the federal supreme court. There is no deadline for the opinions or the court’s ruling.

“When you have a restriction for publishing stories about personalities, the preservation of history’s knowledge is lost. It’s a higher issue than looking for profit”, says Snel’s Sônia Jardim.

“After so many years of fighting to reestablish democracy and freedom of expression in our country, we cannot allow censorship to put its clutches over artistic works ever again”.

The post New law set to ease the way for biographies in Brazil appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The country is considered as one of the most dangerous places for media professionals in the world. So far in 2013, three journalists – two in the state of Minas Gerais and one in the state of Ceará – have been killed for publishing or possessing sensitive information about crime organizations.

Old problems like media concentration — among a few huge corporations persists — and the influence of local political leaders over judges and other public agents limit the work of the press.

These issues have contributed to the defeat of innovative initiatives that would have created a public media regulation agency and a law assuring internet users’ rights.

European Union: Is the European Union faltering on media freedom?
Tunisia: Press faces repressive laws, uncertain future
Egypt: Post-revolution media vibrant but partisan

The post In Brazil press confronts old foes and new violence appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Community radio broadcasting was effectively regulated in Brazil in 1998 through a bill that laid out criteria and rules. Stations are required to operate in low-powered frequency modulation (FM) up to 25W. The stations’ programming must also be open to all inhabitants in its coverage area, should not aim for a profit and have no connection to political parties or religious institutions.

Brazil currently has around 4,700 community radio stations, operating either with full or temporary authorisation from the federal government. Up to another 1,300 stations that are waiting for authorisation to begin broadcasting.

Experts and stations representatives say that community stations are still a great way to empower people through efficient communication within their communities, even in a time when social media and cyberspace seem to command the most attention.

“While commercial media speaks about a place, community media speaks from a place”, says Professor Adair Rocha from PUC-Rio and Uerj universities. Rocha has more than 30 years of experience working with community communication in Rio de Janeiro.

“It’s obvious that commercial media has greater power, with broader market relations that attract the population. But community media has another power, which is making each person to identify oneself with that particular thing he or she does, or communicates.”

In this context, the phenomenon of social media has strengthened community radios, giving them space to publish programming notes and attract new listeners, says José Luiz Sóter, executive coordinator at Abraço Nacional, which is Brazil’s Community Radio Broadcasting Association.

“Just as mobile phones replaced the use of transistor radios by fans at the football stadiums, most community radio stations have adopted the latest streaming technologies and entered the virtual world”, Sóter told Index on Censorship.

States from the South and Southeast regions, the richest in Brazil, have the highest concentration of community radio stations in the country, especially in the metropolitan areas.

The federal government has been criticised for not doing more to improve the legislation that regulates community radios, which is generally thought to be obsolete.

One of the radio stations’ main complaints is related to diversifying the sources of financing. The 1998 bill states that stations can only get advertising in the form of “cultural support”, stipulating it only comes from sponsors located inside its community – which is seen as something that limits the radios’ financial viability.

Associations like Abraço Nacional also demand more broadcasting power for stations and a streamlined authorisations process for new stations.

Brazil’s Ministry of Communications denies the existence of any obstacle in the authorisation process. In 2011, it created the National Plan of Grants for Community Radio Broadcasting, which publishes a list of expansion locations months ahead, allowing time for interested parties to collect required documentation and to prepare themselves to go on air.

“Many times, however, the entities that ask for the authorisation do not send us the complete documentation, which pushes back the schedule”, says the Ministry’s general coordinator for Community Radio Broadcasting, Samir Nobre.

Nobre says the government intends to make it possible for all municipalities in Brazil to have at least one community radio by the end of 2013. Around 2,000 of the 5,500 cities in the country still don’t have community radio stations.

Abraço Nacional recently issued a statement criticising the government for not completing a series of recommendations that it had committed to complete by November 2011. One of the demands was making communities radios eligible for the federal government’s advertising budget, which has not yet been done.

“The public power has done everything to make it difficult for community radios to survive”, says Abraço Nacional’s José Luiz Sóter.

The Ministry of Communications responded by saying that community radios are an “important form of communication” but claimed it has no power to modify the law in force.

The community radio movement has also been hijacked by many groups — political and religious — flouting the law to create broadcasting outlets . Radio stations that were supposed to have community-driven programming end up being vehicles for the interests of private groups.

The Ministry of Communications acknowledges the problem and says it is doing its best to improve control over authorised stations’ operations.

On the other hand, some community radio stations that violate the law’s technical restrictions or that simply start operating without authorisation are considered by the government to be “pirate radios”. Many of them end up being shut down and having their equipment impounded by the police.

Traditional media often portrays these “pirate stations” as a menacing problem that could interfere with the frequency used by flight controllers, allegedly threatening the safety of commercial flights. Some see this kind of attitude as a move by big media companies to stop community stations from operating.

The debate about pirate stations “is part of the dispute for audience, in which groups with greater economic power try to keep their hegemony”, says Professor Adair Rocha from PUC-Rio and Uerj.

“This image the media created of ‘radios that put planes down’ is certainly not truthful”.

The post Brazil’s community radio stations struggle to survive appeared first on Index on Censorship.

According to the police, Carvalho was accosted by a hooded man on a motorcycle who shot him several times before fleeing. The crime has been linked to the killing of a radio presenter last March.

Police have not confirmed the cause of the crime. However, state deputy Durval Ângelo, who is president of the Human Rights Committee for Minas Gerais’s Legislative Assembly, posted on Twitter that the photographer had information about the shooting of radio presenter Rodrigo Neto, who was killed in the town of Ipatinga on 8 March.

Although Neto’s murder remains unsolved, state deputy Ângelo claims the presenter had given Carvalho information about policemen involved in crimes on the Ipatinga area. The case is still being investigated by police.

Walgney Carvalho worked freelance for 5 years at Vale do Aço’s Police desk. Rodrigo Neto had started working on the same newspaper one week before getting killed.

Both Brazil’s National Newspapers Association and the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism issued statements denouncing the photographer’s killing.

The post Killings of two journalists in Brazil could be linked appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Rodrigo Neto was shot while leaving a restaurant on the evening of Friday 8 March. Two men on a motorcycle accosted him and opened fire. The presenter was hit on the head and on the chest. The gunmen escaped unidentified.

The case is still being investigated by the police.

State Deputy Durval Ângelo, who is president of the Human Rights Committee on Minas Gerais’s Legislative Assembly, claims the journalist had given him information about policemen involved in crimes on the Ipatinga area.

Workmates of Rodrigo from Vanguarda radio station  are sure the murder is connected to his work as a crime show presenter.

Rodrigo was not the first radio presenter to be gunned down in Brazil this year. On 22nd February, journalist Mafaldo Góis was shot and killed in the town of Jaguaribe, in the northeastern state of Ceará. His death is believed to have been ordered by a local drug dealer, cited by Góis in this crime radio show.

Brazil had the 5th highest number of journalists killed in the world in 2012, with 5 cases, according to the International Press Institute .

The post Brazil: Radio presenter murder unsolved appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Radio presenter Valério Luiz de Oliveira was gunned down at the front door of 820 AM radio station in the state capital Goiânia on 5 July 2012.

Businessman Maurício Borges Sampaio, who acted as Atlético Clube Goianiense’s vice-president up to 10 days before Oliveira’s murder, was arrested in February this year accused of having ordered the killing. He denies having any link to the crime.

Days before being killed, Oliveira went on air to strongly denounce Atlético’s management for the team, after poor results on the pitch led to the club’s relegation to the second tier of the Brazilian league later that year .

Among other statements, the presenter compared Atlético’s directors to “rats” that abandon a ship before it sinks .

In a testimony given to the Police, Sampaio admitted signing a document that barred Oliveira’s radio staff from the club’s premises. The former director also claimed the radio presenter had already being banned from Goiás and Vila Nova, two other football clubs in Goiânia.

Three other people accused of acting in the journalist’s killing are also being held in prison.

The post Brazilian football club director held before trial for journalist’s killing appeared first on Index on Censorship.

In early March, the Chamber of Deputies’ Attorney General, Cláudio Cajado, contacted Google in order to request the removal of online videos and content hosted by the company, for being offensive to deputies.

Cajado, a Democratas Party representative from the state of Bahia, denies that his requests were attempts to restrict freedom of expression, and claimed that he only wanted to speed up the processes that, when left to the Justice, could take months — or even years to be solved.

According to Cajado’s office, Google has responded to his requests by being very “thoughtful” in explaining its policies on content removal.

The Attorney General’s office says it receives an average of two complaints per month by the deputies, mainly because of videos uploaded on YouTube, or posts published on its Blogger platform.

The Chamber of Deputies’ Attorney General is responsible for defending the deputies’ honour and the House’s image.

“We seek a partnership [with Google] to set up actions and attitudes, without creating any kind of erosion [of the House's image] or harsh consequences”, said Cajado to the Chamber of Deputies’ website.

He cited the case of federal deputy and former Rio de Janeiro governor and presidential candidate Anthony Garotinho, who filed a lawsuit against Google demanding the removal of 11 YouTube videos during the 2010 electoral campaign.

“We have to count on Google executives’ good will and on their comprehension over the importance of measures like this to our country’s life and our democracy,” said Cajado.

As he took office as the Chamber’s Attorney General in early March, Cajado also said he planned to ensure that deputies had enough media time to reply to criticism, and plans to do the same online.

All complaints brought by deputies to the Attorney General are analysed by his office’s legal team, to ensure that cases that can lead to actual lawsuits are taken forward.

The most common cases of online attacks brought to the Attorney General’s office are related to slander and — more seriously — crimes against honour, which is a punishable offence according to Brazil’s law.

When it comes to the Brazilian judiciary, rulings about the internet can be very diverse and — sometimes — illogical.

In September 2012, a judge from the state of Mato Grosso do Sul ordered the arrest of Fabio Coelho, Google’s top executive in Brazil, after videos deemed offensive to a mayoral candidate were uploaded to YouTube. When the posts were not immediately deleted, Brazil’s federal police temporarily detained Coelho.

While the Superior Court of Justice has already ruled that internet providers are not obliged to pay reparations to users because of offensive content, the Supreme Court is about to judge if internet companies should supervise information that is published.

This is related to an appeal by Google after the State Justice of Minas Gerais, Brazil’s second most populous state, ordered the company to pay BRL 10,000 (around USD $5,000) to an offended user, and to remove content from Orkut, Google’s social network.

The Attorney General’s new initiative has already worried a few of his fellow deputies.

“The Parliament’s best defence is a transparent behaviour, one that seeks the public interest. And anyone that feels injured or vilified can always go to the Justice and seek reparation. I believe the Attorney General should have other priorities.” says Chico Alencar, a Rio de Janeiro representative for the Socialism and Freedom Party, PSOL.

Alencar also fears that these actions taken along with Google could worsen politicians already tarnished public image.

“Public opinion would consider this as censorship and a privilege for people that already have many other privileges. We should learn how to reply to websites by creating another websites and, if that’s the case, asking those who offend us for the right to reply. That would be enough.”

Editor’s note: Google is a funder of Index on Censorship

The post Brazil’s politician pile on pressure to remove “offensive” web content appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Brazil’s constitution protects free speech, but antiquated local laws often threaten this fundamental right in digital spaces.

The latest statistics from Google’s Transparency Report show that Brazil issues the third most court orders for content removal behind the US and Germany. Recent cases, including the arrest of a Google executive for refusing to take down a video from YouTube, highlight the growing need for reform.

The Marco Civil da Internet, a draft bill that’s been in the works for several years, aims to guarantee greater freedom of expression, net neutrality, and the protection of private user data online in Brazil. I recently spoke with Alessandro Molon, a congressman from Brazil’s centre-left Workers’ Party and the bill’s rapporteur, about what many are calling the first Internet Bill of Rights.

The Marco Civil draft bill will be Brazil’s first Internet Bill of Rights — but its progress has slowed significantly

The idea of a Brazilian regulatory framework for internet civil rights first emerged in 2007 when civil society began urging lawmakers to stop prioritising cybercrime over civil rights online. The Ministry of Justice, NGOs and academics joined forces in 2009 to launch the Marco Civil draft bill initiative as a piece of crowdsourced collaborative legislation. Thousands of people have since participated in public consultations online to help shape the bill’s direction.

In addition to specific provisions around net neutrality and privacy, Marco Civil addresses basic internet access as fundamental for the advancement of freedom of expression and other civil rights. Only 40 per cent of Brazilians use the internet, meaning more than 100 million still lack access in the country.

Bringing everyone to the table is certainly democratic, but it can also be slow. After nearly coming to vote four times in the Chamber of Deputies, Brazil’s lower house, the bill has been pulled from the docket each time for a variety of reasons including lack of quorum, consent and support.

Marco Civil has also been slowed by private companies interested in strengthening copyright laws and those with business models dependent on user data lobbying for amendments. These efforts mirror the corporate influence that nearly pushed SOPA and PIPA into law in the US and that are stalling the EU’s proposed new data protection regulations.

Voting on Marco Civil was most recently postponed in November after two amendments introduced troubling provisions around net neutrality and copyright infringement. Without adequate safe harbour provisions, which protect internet companies from being held liable for their users’ actions, companies often restrict more content than legally required to stay safely within the confines of the law, thus chilling free speech.

The same day the bill was recently derailed, Brazil approved two cybercrime bills.

The new cybercrime laws revise Brazil’s Penal Code, criminalising the use and distribution of security circumvention software in some cases. The controversial Azeredo bill, which Molon says “almost criminalised everything on the internet”, was watered down through legislative changes and presidential vetoes, making it less threatening to freedom of expression than originally intended.

Another blow for Marco Civil came in December when Brazil joined Russia and China in signing on to new regulations at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. Opponents of the new regulations worry provisions around spam and security will be used to restrict internet access and freedom of expression online when they come into effect in 2015.

Molon was opposed to the new regulations and says he worked hard to pass Marco Civil before  the Dubai summit so that Brazil would have a clear position at the conference. “I regret that we didn’t have this in Dubai. It shows how urgent passing March Civil will be, giving Brazil a much more pioneering position in internet legislation and regulation in the world.”

Molon suggests that global conversation around Marco Civil is helping the country achieve a leading role in internet governance and free expression even though the bill is not yet law. “Because of the kind of legislation we are discussing on the internet, Brazil is occupying a more important role in the world nowadays. This shows our aspirations, which must be confirmed by turning the bill into law.”

Molon is optimistic Marco Civil will finally come to vote in the Chamber of Deputies before July and be approved into law by the end of 2013. If the bill is to guarantee online freedom of expression,which is its most central aim, then recent amendments around net neutrality and intermediary liability must be revised. Backlash to such revisions are likely to stretch the bill through another year of deliberations if Marco Civil is to become the first Internet Bill of Rights and a positive legislative model for other countries.

The post Threats to online free speech are a civil society defeat, says Internet Bill of Rights sponsor appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Brazil’s constitution guarantees both freedom of the press and free speech. The government does not impose censorship in the media. However, recent actions taken by the judiciary —  most of them concerning the removal of online content deemed defamatory —  have been extremely controversial.

In September 2012, a judge from the state of Mato Grosso do Sul ordered the arrest of Fabio Coelho, Google’s top executive in Brazil, after videos about a mayoral candidate were uploaded to YouTube. They were considered to be offensive to Alcides Bernal, who was running for office in the state’s capital city. When the posts were not immediately deleted, Brazil’s federal police temporarily detained Coelho.

Fabio Coelho’s case illustrates clearly how rigid the country’s laws are when it comes to offensive material. Still, many people argue that some of the judges’ decisions in these cases have been excessive. “There are gaps in Brazil’s electoral legislation that make this kind of situation possible”, said Google Brazil’s Public Policy Senior Counsel Marcel Leonardi when asked about Coelho’s detention. He hopes that the case will shine a light ‘on the need to adjust Brazil’s law, so that legitimate political outcries from internet users can be differentiated from, say, unlawful propaganda. The internet’s dynamics need to be understood.”

By not removing the videos, Google tried to make a case for the need for more liberal laws regarding free speech in Brazil, says Marcelo Träsel, Digital Journalism Professor at Pontifícia Universidade do Rio Grande do Sul University (PUCRS) in Porto Alegre. To make the internet giant responsible for the content ”is like making builders liable for crimes committed by apartment-buyers, or a bus company for crimes committed by its passengers”, he says. “As long as Google has proper means for filing complaints about content — and it does have them — and takes effective measures to restrict abuses when warned about them, the final responsibility must be laid upon the client that published controversial material”, he adds.

Falha de S Paulo is a blog that was shut down for parodying one of Brazil’s leading newspapers

When Folha de S Paulo, the country’s most influential daily newspaper, was criticised for its coverage of that year’s general elections in a blog called Falha de S Paulo (Folha, meaning “newspaper”, was replaced with falha, meaning “fail”), Folha filed a lawsuit claiming the blog’s logo, content, pictures and text font imitated its graphic design and confused web users. A judge demanded the website be removed and imposed a daily fine on its authors. On 20 February, the ban was upheld. “Censorship is supposed to be prohibited [in Brazil]“, said one of the blog’s creators, Lino Ito Bocchini, in an interview with the website Comunique- Se, “but in reality, free speech is only guaranteed to those who have money”. He later expressed his intention to appeal the decision. The case was raised with Frank la Rue, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression. In a recent visit to Brazil, he referred to the situation as “terrible”. Marcelo Träsel agrees that financial pressure comes into play in cases like this. “Politicians, business people and other powerful personalities found that they can silence their critics by filing lawsuits. Influential figures who become  the subject of a scandal are in a financial position to “torment” those who criticise them. “These people don’t even need to win in court”, Träsel says. Filing a lawsuit claiming damages could be enough to shut up a whistleblowing blogger, for example. ”I believe that’s the main threat to free speech in Brazil, and I believe that cases like Falha de S Paulo will grow in number.”

The practice of filing lawsuits to remove defamatory content from the internet also disturbs Google’s Marcel Leonardi. “The internet gives you the possibility to immediately respond to anyone, and in many different ways, like posting videos or creating hyperlinks,” he told Index. In situations like the Falha de S Paulo case, the best way of replying to criticism is by having an online presence so that people can “inform and reply to critics in one’s own virtual space,” he said. According to a recent Transparency Report published by Google, Brazil tops the list of countries that regularly removed digital content. In Leonardi’s opinion, Brazil will continue in this vein unless the “culture of lawsuits” is somehow overcome.

In Brazil, the judiciary has the exclusive power to order content to be taken down from a website — no government body has the right to do so. Other public agents, like federal prosecutors, can only file their demands through lawsuits, as regular attorneys must do. Leonardi believes Brazil is caught between liberal countries like the US, which seldom accepts non-copyright related content removal, and less democratic nations where the main problem isn’t content removal but attacks against publishers and direct government censorship over websites and social media.

Experts like PUCRS’s Marcelo Träsel say that adopting laws that differentiate the “virtual world” from traditional media would bring more clarity to judges’ decisions. In 2012, Congress debated two initiatives that pointed in this direction. One of them — a bill that deals with digital crimes, specifying correlated penalties — was voted in by lawmakers in early November.But another draft bill — called Marco Civil da Internet, or the Internet Civil Right Framework, seen as an “Internet Bill of Rights” — was shelved in November. Marco Civil would have guaranteed basic rights for users, content creators and online intermediaries and established that providers are not responsible for user content. It also would have guaranteed net neutrality, a move that angered the telecommunications industry, as it would prevent them from charging different rates for the various kinds of online content.

Deputy Alessandro Molon, who sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecom companies lobbied hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the free market. “Approving Marco Civil would be a very important step to guarantee freedom of expression in Brazil”, notes Träsel. However, this type of guarantee for civil rights is unlikely to be seen in the country for the foreseeable future, and judges’ decisions are likely to remain as controversial and damaging as ever.

Rafael Spuldar is Index’s regional editor in Brazil. He tweets from @spuldar

This article appears in Fallout: free speech and the economic crisis. Click here for subscription options and more.

The post On the ground: Sao Paulo appeared first on Index on Censorship.