Book cover. Design by Patricia Fiuza.

Drawing on current debates in five of the region’s strongest economies—Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico—all of which boast high Internet penetration rates for Latin America, contributors provide a sketch of legislation, judicial decisions, and policies that affect free expression and privacy online. Book editor and CELE Executive Director Eduardo Bertoni writes:

El debate global sobre la regulación en Internet ha evolucionado desde aquella pregunta inicial acerca de si es necesaria y deseable alguna regulación en la red. […] Los artículos de esta publicación abordan [estos temas] no con la idea de arribar a soluciones últimas, sino con la intención de plantear algunas de las cuestiones legales involucradas en estos temas y pensar el efecto que pueden tener estas políticas sobre la libertad de expresión.

The book’s authors urge policymakers to rely on international and regional human rights instruments—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights—as crucial sources of guiding principles in making policy for the digital age.

Underlying much of the analysis and discussion in the text are three fundamental questions:

• When Internet users post content, store personal data, and search for information on the web, what are their rights and responsibilities?
• How can governments protect citizens’ rights to privacy and free expression while still upholding defamation and copyright law and ensuring that law enforcement officials can carry out legitimate criminal investigations online?
• What role do Internet intermediaries—ISPs, search engines, or platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube or WordPress—have in implementing government policy?

Numerous debates surrounding Internet regulation in Latin America focus on copyright violations and threats to honor or reputation (also known as defamation). Many courts in the region take these infractions seriously (both on and offline), and some legislators argue that they justify implementing tighter regulations on Internet activity.

In Colombia, the proposed (though currently shelved) Lleras Law would allow copyright holders to demand that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) remove infringing content from the web, a process known as “notice-and-takedown.” Under current Colombian law, ISPs can only be required to remove content if they receive an order from a judge. But Ley Lleras would eliminate this requirement, leaving ISPs with the burden of determining whether or not takedown requests were valid.

Art by Tomaz Garzia. CC BY-NC 2.5

Internet search engines also have been held liable for providing access to defamatory content. In Argentina, singer Virginia da Cunha filed a defamation suit against both Google and Yahoo! Argentina, after the companies had denied da Cunha’s request that they filter (remove) search results for her name that led to sexually explicit content. A judge initially ruled in the singer’s favor, but an appellate court later overturned the decision.

Contributing authors Claudio Ruiz [es] and Juan Carlos Lara, of the Chilean NGO Derechos Digitales, warn that under the Lleras Law, ISPs likely would comply with most takedown requests before fully considering their validity, as the alternative could leave them vulnerable to prosecution. The da Cunha case could have led to a similar result, where search engines would agree to filter results upon request, so as not to risk punishment. These examples illustrate the need to protect intermediaries from liability for content created by their users.

Brazilian legal scholar Joana Varon and her co-authors, all researchers at the Centro do Tecnologia e Sociedade, discuss these issues in a chapter on content filtering. Although there is little evidence that Latin American governments (with the exceptions of Cuba and Venezuela) engage in widespread filtering, legislators have considered various filtering mandates that would combat copyright violations and defamation online. But the authors note that there is a problem with this approach:

…técnicas de filtrado no son precisas…es casi imposible bloquear solo un determinado contenido sin afectar otros…[A]demás, muchos de esos mecanismos utilizados para regular y censurar información son cada vez más sofisticados, utilizando…muchas camadas de control que generalmente están escondidas del usuario común, quien probablemente ni se dará cuenta de que la información a la que accede ha sido objeto de filtrado.

Other contributors include Universidad de los Andes scholar Lorenzo Villegas, who describes the challenges of protecting personal data in the digital age, and Eduardo Bertoni, who discusses the issue of jurisdiction in defamation cases where the poster of the defamatory content is located in one jurisdiction and the offended party is in another. Towards an Internet free of censorship also features articles by George Washington University Professor of Law Dawn Nunziato, Derechos Digitales' Alberto Cerda, and University of Puerto Rico legal scholar Hiram Meléndez Juarbe.

The Center for Democracy & Technology's Cynthia M. Wong, James X. Dempsey, and Ellery Roberts Biddle co-authored the final chapter of the book, which places current policymaking debates in Latin America into broader international context. They note that the issues being debated in Latin America are very similar to those raised elsewhere in the world, a convergence that is not surprising given the global nature of the medium.

However, while policymakers around the world are confronting the issues of free expression, privacy, copyright protection, defamation, and government power, approaches vary substantially from region to region, and country to country. Some have turned towards repression, jeopardizing not only human rights but also economic innovation and human development. As the book shows, Latin American policymakers have looked to both Europe and the U.S. when debating these issues. But they also have the unique advantage of working in a region where country-to-country relations are generally friendly, and legislators often are able to “borrow” policy solutions from one country and apply them in another.

Towards an Internet free of censorship aims to take advantage of this cooperative dynamic by initiating new conversations, collaborations, and policy initiatives that will help to protect and strengthen online free expression, freedom of information, and privacy throughout Latin America.

Written by Ellery Biddle · comments (3)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Under the proposed law, PL 84/99, sponsored by Representative Eduardo Azeredo, courts could apply criminal penalties to activities like file sharing, peer-to-peer communications, and the fair use of copyrighted works. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and sites like YouTube and Flickr could become liable for unlawful content posted by their users. And ISPs, email service providers, and other Internet intermediaries would be obligated to collect and retain users’ personal data for extended periods of time. Scholars, civil society leaders, and advocates for digital rights have spoken out against the bill, arguing that the law would interfere with citizens’ rights to free expression and privacy and restrict the openness of the Brazilian Internet.

International Free Software Forum 2011, Porto Alegre. By Anon DePlume. CC BY-SA.

Researchers at the Centro do Tecnología e Sociedade [pt] (Center for Technology and Society) of the Fundação Getulio Vargas, Brazil’s premier social science research institution, have circulated ample analysis calling attention to problems in the bill. Mega Não [pt], a collective of digital rights activists and scholars who advocate for Internet openness and strong online privacy laws, worked with stakeholders to compose a 2008 petition [pt] illustrating the bill’s problems and urging legislators to vote against it. The petition emphasized the importance of balancing the nation’s security interests with fundamental rights and the broader trajectory of Brazil’s information society:

Não defendemos o plágio, a cópia indevida ou o roubo de obras. Defendemos…liberdade de troca, o crescimento da criatividade e a expansão do conhecimento no Brasil. […] [Esse projeto] Projetos como esses…colocam o país definitivamente para debaixo do tapete da história da sociedade da informação no século XXI.

The petition received over 160,000 signatures and prompted legislators to hold a series of public hearings on the bill before allowing it to move forward in the legislative process. Speaking at the International Free Software Forum conference in Porto Alegre in 2009, former President Lula Ignacio da Silva said of the bill [pt],

Essa lei não visa corrigir abusos na internet. Ela quer é fazer censura. Precisamos é de um código civil para determinar as responsabilidades na internet, mas não proibir.

US-based advocates for Internet openness and privacy including the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have also raised concerns about the bill.

The proposed law would undercut many of the positive developments in Brazilian Internet policy that have taken place in recent years. Under Lula, Minister of Culture and singer-songwriter Gilberto Gil worked to increase Internet access and supported expansion of digitally-based educational and cultural programs for Brazilians. The International Free Software Forum, Creative Commons, the Peer-to-Peer Foundation, and other leading innovators partnered with the Ministry of Culture and held events in Brazil, making the country a global hub for Internet openness.

In tandem with these developments, lawmakers drafted a digital “bill of rights” or civil regulatory framework, known as the Marco Civil da Internet. The full text of the bill of law is available in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. Developed through numerous consultations (both online and offline) between lawmakers, scholars, and digital rights advocates, the Marco Civil da Internet represents a balance of the right to freedom of expression with the interests of privacy and security. The bill establishes a clear set of rights and responsibilities for users, sets strong net neutrality principles, and shields intermediaries from criminal liability for user-generated content. Congress has yet to vote on the legislation; the Azeredo Law currently sits higher on the Congressional agenda than the Marco Civil, but should members of Congress call for further deliberation concerning the PL 84/99, this could change.

Under the new administration of President Dilma Rouseff, who took office in January of 2011, Minister of Culture Ana de Hollanda has signaled that she will likely diverge from Gil’s policy agenda. She startled the digital rights community by removing the Creative Commons license from the Ministry’s website during her first days in office.

As part of its partnership with the Centro da Tecnologia y Sociedade (CTS), CDT has issued comments on PL 84/99, analyzing its provisions under international and regional human rights law and comparing PL 84/99 with the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, which Representative Azeredo has referred to as the “inspiration” for the bill. The key points of the CDT memorandum are as follows:

• PL 84/99 would criminalize the violation of an “express access restriction” to a computer, network, or online service. The language used in the bill is so broad that it could criminalize violations of the “terms of service” of websites or other online services.

• PL 84/99 would criminalize obtaining or transferring data from a system or network protected by an “express access restriction.” This could criminalize activities such as file sharing and transferring data from one device or system to another.

• PL 84/99 could generate legal consequences for intermediaries—ISPs, hosts, or platforms for user-generated content—that facilitate, unknowingly and unintentionally, the “unauthorized” transfer of data or the dissemination of malicious code.

• PL 84/99 would obligate intermediaries to retain user data for law enforcement purposes, a measure that would also interfere with the citizen’s right to privacy.

Over the past decade, Brazil has pioneered a digital policymaking approach that countries all over the world have looked to as a model for promoting innovation and openness online. CTS and CDT urge digital rights advocates in Brazil and throughout the Americas to oppose PL 84/99, and to support the efforts of Brazilian legislators and civil society leaders working to maintain Brazil’s vibrant information society.

Written by Ellery Biddle · comments (6)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Due to a canceled flight, I unfortunately missed most of Day One, but was able to attend (and speak on) the day's final panel, with Egyptian blogger Ahmed Bahgat, Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar, Farhan Janjua, Ahmed Al Omran, and others.  Each blogger took a different approach, touching on issues from their country (or country of focus), with particularly interesting presentations from Bahgat and Janjua.

Bahgat, who tweets as @bahgatia, discussed–among other things–the issue of military trials in Egypt, emphasizing the ways in which the military crackdown on free expression has affected bloggers, mentioning in particular Maikel Nabil's forced move to a mental institution.

Janjua gave a more positive picture of the Pakistani Internet, showing an excellent video (by @Rabiagarib and @CIOPK of CIO WebStudio) on Pakistani social media statistics:

On Day One, bloggers also noted that, despite a high volume of tweets, the conference hashtag (#blogmundofoz) had not made it to Brazil's trending topics. Many accused Twitter of censorship (note: Twitter has explained that trending topics are not based purely on volume, see this post for a detailed explanation) and, in protest, have begun adding the hashtag #ocupatt (Occupy the Trending Topics) to their tweets:

A tweet from @BlogMundo

There was also a discussion on Libya, with questions from the audience. Pepe Escobar and another speaker discussed the Brazilian anti-intervention movement (there will be a protest in Rio de Janeiro against NATO on November 3).

Day Two: Blogging in Latin America

The second day of the conference started with a robust discussion on blogging and social networking in Latin America, a region that tends to be underrepresented in global conferences of this type, which often focus heavily on blogging in authoritarian or non-democratic countries.

Iroel Sánchez, a Cuban blogger who writes the blog La Pupila Insomne, discussed why he started blogging: “Tired of reading the same lies about my country in the media, I decided to open my own blog … The repercussion of certain coverage of my country reflected the vision of the United States but ignored some of the most important causes.  The media relies on stereotypes about the island but never discuss the causes that produce these situations.”

Quoting Iroel Sanchez

Talking about the value of blogging, panelist Ecuadorian journalist Osvaldo Léon of Agência Latinoamericana de Informação, said: “Building mechanisms and alternatives with anti-hegemonic character.  Today there is a reactivation of the discourse on technological speech in Northern Africa, according to which we want to say that changes in history have happened because of technology and not social change: such as ‘Facebook revolution,' ‘Twitter revolution' et cetera.”

Martin Becerra, an Argentinian blogger and professor, discussed some of the perils of the Argentinian blogosphere:

“I think that the blogs here represent an emergent space and try to give an alternative to the single-direction of information, but have not totally explored this … but I want to talk about some of the risks of these networks: I believe that the social networks make up a unique representation of those that exist in society. Another risk is that blogs and social networks are often grouped by those who think the same…people come together in society with the same or similar opinions about social things. This dogma leaves out anything that doesn't converge into basic agreements that these groups have.”

Nonetheless, he said, “the depths of the blogosphere are greater than those of traditional media.”

Jesse Freeston, a Canadian journalist who has lived and worked in Honduras, started by talking about the Occupy movement that started in New York, saying “There are thousands and thousands of people in North America who are opening their eyes and seeing discomfort for the first time.”

“Occupy is an important word,” says Freeston. “Cyber-activism, on the other hand, is a word that doesn't make sense. It's like cyber-eating; you can't do it virtually. Same with ‘occupy.'”

“‘Homos Interneticas' is a term recently coined by some anthropologists to describe people who no longer no how to do anything outside of the Internet. The world is waiting for us to do something,” Freeston argues, “These machines work like cocaine. I don't know if you've ever met someone who is high on drugs, but they think they're the most important in the room. The sad reality is that we don't tweet or Facebook for just one day, nobody will miss us,” he says, to a hearty round of applause. Freeston says he limits his use of the “drug” (the Internet) to an hour per day.

Discussing Honduras, he notes that the occupy movement really starts in the “south,” from prior movements. He then showed a video he produced for The Real News Network on the 2009 Honduran coup d'état. Honduras has led the world in attacks on journalists since the coup, with fifteen journalists murdered in eighteen months.

Day Two: The Brazilian Blogging Experience

Brazilian activist cartoonist Carlos Latuff, whose work has been regularly featured on Global Voices, particularly throughout the ‘Arab Spring,' starts the Brazilian panel thanking his country for “bringing Latin America here,” stating that Brazil tends to turn its back on the rest of Latin America.

“In the Arab Spring,” says Latuff, “I've used Twitter heavily to communicate with people in Egypt.”

Latuff then addresses the topic of ‘Twitter revolutions', stating: “Twitter, just like Facebook, is an instrument or a tool, just like the Internet is just a tool, just like a Molotov cocktail or a mobile phone is a tool - and people use the Internet to accomplish their goals.”

He explains his own history as an activist cartoonist, stating that his 1999 trip to Palestine solidified his work in the solidarity movement. He then addresses why he started drawing cartoons about other Arab countries earlier this year:

“People in Palestine contacted me before the protests in Egypt and requested I draw cartoons for them. I was afraid that the Egyptian authorities were going to kill them all. But on the 25th, protests began, and the cartoons I had drawn were often printed and shared during protests. It gave me the confidence that I was producing artwork that has relevance for people. This is what leaves me the happiest as an artist.”

“People say I'm an activist and not a cartoonist, as if those things couldn't come together,” says Latuff. “I don't care about being promoted as an artist - even if people removed my name, I'd still be happy. I'm not interested in money; anyone can reproduce my cartoons.”

“I have 50,000 Twitter followers, and many of them are from Egypt. No one knows me in Brazil; it's amazing how many Egyptian press interviews I've done,” says the cartoonist. (Note: I transcribed much of Latuff's talk here).

Following Latuff's talk, there was a robust discussion of the role of the blogosphere in Brazil, with panelists showing frustration at the mainstream media, accusing it of plagiarizing the blogosphere on numerous occasions. To that end, Conceição Oliveira calls for “the democracy of comunication in Brazil,” a call met with heavy applause.

“We have Facebook, blogs, Twitter…we just need to maximize their potential and do something amazing like they did in the Arab Spring,” says Leandro Fortes, a journalist with CartaCapital and blogger with the national commission BlogProg.

Closing Thoughts

In the closing panel, speakers discussed media regulation, a hot topic at the moment in Brazil. The panel featured Paulo Bernardo, the Brazilian Communications Minister; Jesse Chacón, the former Venezuelan Communications Minister; Damian Loreti, a member of the commission that drafted Argentina's media law; and Blanca Josales, Peru's Communications Minister.

Brazil's draft media law has sparked a polarized debate, with some–including major companies and activists–saying that the bill threatens free expression, and others (including some publications) defending the bill.

The conference, while interesting, could have benefited from greater interactions between participants. To that end, organizers should consider making the second meeting more participatory, offering breakout sessions or unconferences. Furthermore, the gender diversity on the panels was disappointing; many contained no women, while the total count of female speakers (myself included) was about three. Nevertheless, the organizers succeeded in bringing together a really interesting group of individuals from all over Latin America and the world, and should be congratulated.

Next year's conference, for which Itaipu has already promised funding, is already being discussed, and I have agreed to take part in the international planning committee to ensure greater global participation.

Written by Jillian York · comments (8)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Falha: Create Your Headline

Brazilian freedom of expression groups, including ARTICLE 19, are organizing a campaign in support of brother bloggers Lino and Mario Bocchini, who have been sued by the newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo due to the content disseminated on-line on their blog Falha de Sao Paulo. The Brazilian judiciary issued a provisional decision in the case filed against the blog, ordering its removal from the internet. The blog has been under what the brothers call “censorship” for almost 80 days now. The lawsuit may result in the payment of indemnification for moral damages in an amount to be defined by the judging magistrate, at its discretion.

During 2010 Brazilian electoral campaign, bloggers Lino and Mário Ito Bocchini created Falha de Sao Paulo, a blog dedicated to humour, political satire and journalism. The word “falha” means “failure” in Portuguese. The blog draws on photomontage, jokes and other blog posts to satirise the work of the popular daily newspaper Folha.

The blog was clearly created as a parody, in the same vein as previous media outlets, including the magazine Bundas (“Asses”) and Caras (“Faces”), which were broadly disseminated in newsstands all over the country in the 90’s.

The newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo, however, decided to sue the bloggers on the grounds that they were making unlawful use of a registered brand. According to the newspaper’s lawyers, the blog was seeking to profit from the confusion of internet users, who may mistake the blog for the official Folha de Sao Paulo websitewhen logging onto the site.

The blog, however, has no commercial purpose and carries no advertisement. The domain was registered under the bloggers’ names. The newspaper argued that the bloggers acted in bad faith in order to take advantage of the newspaper’s brand and reputation. These arguments are without any basis given the type of articles and other distinctive content found on the blog.

ARTICLE 19 believes the arguments raised by Folha de Sao Paulo in the lawsuit lack any merit and are advanced in a case which is clearly aimed at stifling any comments posted by the bloggers which are critical of the newspaper.

Through a provisional measure issued by a Sao Paulo judge, the blog has now been removed from the internet and the bloggers are forbidden to use the domain falhadesaopaulo.com.br. In the next stage of the case, the court will consider whether the brothers are liable to pay damages for moral harm caused to the newspaper.

ARTICLE 19 notes that there are no clear rules to determine the amount of damages to be awarded in such cases. Furthermore, there are no rules at all establishing an upper limit for the amount of damages to be awarded.

ARTICLE 19 urges the Brazilian judiciary to consider Brazil’s international legal obligations on the right to freedom of expression and dismiss the case on the grounds that the bloggers were merely exercising their freedom to express their views and ideas on the work of the newspaper. Folha, as a media outlet that has been publicly defending freedom of press for many years, should adopt a more tolerant behaviour in relation to its critics.

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (2)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Over the past five years that the blog has been online, Nova Corja stood out mainly because of its coverage of corruption scandals in the Rio Grande do Sul Government, accusations that have now led the Federal Public Ministry of that state to investigate governor Yeda Crusius for malpractice and administrative dishonesty. Nova Corja was also known for its acid, dark sense of humor and for its unyielding opposition to PT, the ruling Labour Party of Brazilian President Lula - although at the same time the blog was often also accused by its many foes of backing the same party.

The last post has gathered, at the time of publication of this piece, nearly 300 comments. According to Alvares, the blog's archive will still be available online as a testimony of its fight against corruption:

Espero que o A Nova Corja permaneça como registro da demência que assola não só o governo Yeda, mas a política gaúcha e brasileira. As eleições do ano que vem serão as mais importantes desde 1989, e boa parte da bandalha praticada por eles ultimamente está nos arquivos do blog.

ABRA$$O

Lúcia Freitas [pt] remembers that Nova Corja was the only Brazilian blog invited to attend the G-20 Summit in London last April. She is very concerned at the low interest the news seems to have raised on the blogosphere, as only a few blog posts and twitter reactions can be found online:

Não houve proteção da comunidade, blogagem coletiva, indignação. Passou batido.
Bad, bad bloggers

Um mergulho no silêncio de jornalismo bem-feito, claro, contundente. Derrubado por uma sequência de processos na justiça que dão dores de cabeça incuráveis a cidadãos no exercício do seu direito à livre expressão.
Este tipo de silêncio é péssimo para todos nós.

Eu, como blogueira E jornalista, fico com vergonha, vergonha, vergonha. Primeiro de mim, por não ter lido os feeds por dois dias e não ter visto tamanho absurdo. Segundo de meus vizinhos de rede, que se reúnem tão facilmente para o #lingerieday, mas não se preocupam nem por um instante com as questões mais profundas que nos cercam e atingem.

While most of the blogosphere remains silent or unaware of Nova Corja's closure, one blogger celebrates the news: Polibio Braga [pt], one of the blog's plaintiffs, is happy to have helped to shut down yet another blog, having done the same a few years ago, when he filed a lawsuit against the Tomando na Cuia blog [still online at a new web address, pt]. On the second occasion, however, Nova Corja won the case as the lawsuit was rejected on the grounds of ineptitude. Nonetheless,  Polibio Braga [pt] celebrates:

A remessa dos dois blogs para o aterro sanitário virtual da Web, é uma homenagem do editor a todos os jornalistas caluniados por grupos iguais de delinqüentes políticos petistas. Além da família comum, os editores dos dois blogs escondiam-se sob pseudônimos e alojamentos em provedores fora do país que acolhem todo gênero de bandidos.

Because of its investigative work, often scooping the mainstream media, Nova Corja has been subject to three lawsuits over its 5 year existance, and some of its bloggers and their families have been subject to various threats. According to Marcelo Träsel [pt], one of the blog's past collaborators, the main motivation behind the blog's closure is indeed this set of three lawsuits they faced, but not because the bloggers were afraid of the consequences:

O problema é que eles custam dinheiro, mesmo quando o juiz decide a seu favor, e, principalmente, tomam muito tempo. Todos os membros atuais e antigos da Corja têm empregos e famílias para cuidar. O jornalismo político era algo como uma prestação de serviços à sociedade, um voluntariado. Quando os poderosos foram perturbados e resolveram se aproveitar do Judiciário para tentar calar a Corja, porém, a sociedade mostrou-se incapaz de ajudar. O tempo livre antes dedicado ao jornalismo passou a ser dedicado a defender-se da litigância de má-fé. Algumas famílias até mesmo sofreram ameaças.

Träsel, who says the news is a nail in democracy's coffin, carries on and urges the creation of an organization similar to the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Brazil:

Algumas lições importantes podem ser tiradas desse caso. Primeiro, percebe-se que o bom jornalismo ainda faz diferença. A luz do dia incomoda aos poderosos e, no contexto da comunicação em rede mediada por computador, está ao alcance de qualquer cidadão expor os fatos ao sol. É o que chamo de webjornalismo cidadão, uma prática cada vez mais incensada como panacéia para os problemas do jornalismo. Pois bem, esse caso mostra os limites do webjornalismo cidadão.

Expostos ao sol, os políticos e sua entourage costumam sentir-se acuados e apelam ao Judiciário para tentar calar seus inimigos. Não precisam nem mesmo vencer um processo: os trâmites legais em si mesmos já têm um enorme poder disruptivo sobre o trabalho de pessoas que não vivem para a política e precisam se dedicar à vida real. Repórteres funcionários de empresas de comunicação podem contar com o setor jurídico para defendê-los nestes processos e seguir com sua rotina produtiva. Também não precisam pagar os custos judiciais. Repórteres amadores ou sem apoio institucional, por outro lado, são alvos fáceis para a intimidação jurídica.

Maurício Caleiro [pt] says that the powerful and corrupt forces who used to enjoy the complicit silence of the mainstream media are behind the move to close blogs. He calls for immediate action:

Portanto, se nada for for feito para garantir ao menos a certeza de defesa jurídica, a blogosfera política independente e crítica – que, diante dessas circunstâncias, tende a encolher – vai repetir o que acontece no universo do grande capital que tanto critica: blogueiros que são suportados por portais ou que, devido a alta audiência e longevidade na rede, já constituiram suas próprias redes informais de proteção jurídicas, tendem a sobreviver; a massa de neófitos e de independentes que lutam para conquistar um espaço ficará jogada aos tubarões da litigância. Portanto, é preciso reagir. E já.

For further information about recent attacks on freedom of expression in Brazil, please see the following Global Voices posts:

Plaintiffs try to silence one of the country's leading journalists
Judicial decisions, a growing threat to online freedom

Written by Paula Góes · comments (1)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Art: Luciano Matsuzaki and Mariana Lettis

On May 14th a protest [pt] against the Digital Crimes Bill proposed by Senator Azeredo to typify crimes on the Internet took place in São Paulo to promote debate. On May 25th, it was time for a demonstration in Porto Alegre. On June 1st, a similar protest happened in Minas Gerais and a new one is being planned now in Rio de Janeiro.

These protests have been called “Against the Digital AI-5” after the Brazilian dictatorship's Institutional Act Number Five or “AI-5“, the fifth, and considered the most cruel, of seventeen decrees issued by the military dictatorship in the years following the 1964 coup d'état in Brazil. Issued in 1968, AI-5 abolished freedom of expression by introducing the preliminary censorship of music, films, theater and television. Any work considered subversive to the political and moral values of the country was censored and artists jailed. AI-5 marked the transition to the toughest period of human rights violations in Brazilian history.

All over Brazil, mobilization against the proposed bill has been organized by a group of bloggers, who have put together a manifesto, a Twitter account and Mega Não! [Mega No!, pt], a blog created with the single purpose of gathering information and contributing to clarify what this bill might mean for Internet users in the country:

A proposta do Mega Não, é ser um meta manifesto, um agregador de informações e de diversas manifestações na Internet e fora dela, com o objetivo de combater o vigilantismo. Diversos núcleos ciberativistas estão surgindo e aumentando o discurso e a pressão popular contra o vigilantismo, tenta agregar, fomentar e ajudar a divulgar estes eventos é a nossa proposta, nos informe de seus movimentos, vamos juntar forças!!!

An online petition against the Digital Crimes Bill released back in 2008 has already gathered 146,627 signatures. Users of Orkut, one of the most popular online social networks in Brazil, have also entered this fight, since many of the demands of this bill are related to this specific social network. One of many related communities, “Não ao projeto de Azeredo” [No to the Azeredo Bill, pt], has already attracted 6,563 members.

Activists are also using Twitter as an informative tool for their meetings and collaborative blogging about the subject: the hashtags #meganao and #ai5digital are usually used by bloggers and tweeters and represent a source of information for those seeking updates on how to contribute to the campaign. In addition to this, many of the demonstrations' organizers, supporters and enthusiasts can also be found on Twitter, such as @caribe, @pauloteixeira13, @samadeu, @arlesophia and @myris. To keep track with all the details on the repercussions of the demonstrations and the Azeredo Bill itself, people are also using Delicious tagged bookmarks to gather information in one place.

"No, Azeredo", in São Paulo. Photo by Andre Deak, published under a Creative Commons license.

Another interesting fact is that mainstream media has not been covering this situation satisfactorily. For many Brazilian bloggers and Internet users, it looks like the media outlets, in addition to Internet companies and the government, are willing to see the bill approved, so that they will have control over what people say and do all over the Web. Antonio Arles (@arlesophia) comments on this in his blog [pt] and stresses how the Internet is useful to gather information about the demonstrations:

Participei (presencialmente ou via Internet) de pelo menos três atos este ano em que a Rede foi importante para a organização, difusão e transmissão: o Ato contra a “Ditabranda” da Folha, o Saia Gilmar e o Ato Contra o AI-5 Digital. E é justamente essa possibilidade de exercício da cidadania um dos motivos da adesão dos oligopólios midiáticos ao AI-5 Digital. A lógica é a mesma da dos órgãos de repressão do Império Soviético ou da Ditadura Civil-Militar Brasileira. Apesar de usaram a máscara de “democratas” - usando argumentos como o da liberdade quando seus interesses estão em jogo, tentando confundir “liberdade de imprensa” com “liberdade da empresa” -, os oligopólios midiáticos são fruto de uma ditadura. Em última análise, são uma das faces da Ditadura Civil-Militar que continuam vivas depois da redemocratização. A questão é que, para além dos interesses econômicos, a tentativa de criminalização e de aprofundar vigilantismo na Internet é uma tentativa de manutenção do monopólio da informação/opinião e, conseqüentemente, do poder.

Protest in São Paulo. Photo by Andre Deak, published under a Creative Commons license.

Whether this bill will be passed or not, it seems that the main aim of the Brazilian authorities is to indulge international copyright companies. In an interview for the Observatório do Direito à Comunicação blog [Observatory of the Right for Communication, pt] Paulo Teixeira, a PT [Labour Party] member of parliament for São Paulo, stresses:

Ele pretende (o Projeto de Lei Azeredo), em primeiro lugar, introduzir no Brasil uma coisa que alguns países estão introduzindo e que no Brasil, na minha opinião, nós não deveríamos permitir que se introduzisse. Ele está querendo introduzir os mecanismos de controle da internet para a garantia do direito autoral.

Signs read "Against the Azeredo Law Project"

The Digital Crimes Bill has been discussed in several previous posts on Global Voices Online. Now it is up to activists, cyberactivists and Internet users to fight against the Digital Crimes Bill with even more strength. Otherwise, the Brazilian Internet might be turned into a place where people are guilty before they have even realized what they are being charged with.

Written by Diego Casaes · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Summarizing, Alberto Marques, at gJOL blog [Pt] said:

“Portugal e Botelho tiveram muita dificuldade para apresentar seu ponto de vista sobre o projeto, sofrendo intensos protestos.”

José Henrique Portugal facing the audience that protested against the privacy violations and authoritarianism presented by the Cybercrimes Bill

Meme de Carbono blog features a long post discussing the Cybercrimes Bill in the face of the new age of communication and democracy brought by the Internet, listing many reasons to agree and even more to disagree with Azeredo's Bill. He explains in a few words [Pt] why the Cybercrimes Bill has faced such strong opposition from Brazilian digital citizens:

“Caso o projeto de lei de cibercrimes seja aprovado você terá medo de se expressar.
A liberdade de expressão apoiada pela Internet é uma grande ameaça a uma estrutura de poder estabelecida entre mídia, governos e corporações.
O poder estabelecido está acostumado a comunicar e não a interagir com seu ouvinte, mas nós queremos ser interlocutores do nosso tempo.
A pressa em aprovar a criminalização dos cibercrimes não vem de um apelo popular, mas dos interesses do poder estabelecido que defende uma forma de democracia que não é mais suficiente.”

From left to right: Ronaldo Lemos, Sérgio Amadeu, the chair of the debate (in the middle), Fernando Botelho and José Portugal.

The public applauding Sergio Amadeu's speech defending web anonymity and attacking the ‘Azeredo Bill'.

Left banner: “We defend Internet Anonymity”. Right banner: “Defend the future of the Internet in Brazil and around the World”.

“Internet Freedom = Democracy”

But a few minutes before the last speaker finished his speech, event organizers informed the public that they would not be allowed to ask questions to the panelists, because the “debate” had taken too long and would have to finish due to other events scheduled in the room. Daniel Padua complains [Pt] about the lack of a real public debate on the “debate”:

“Debate sobre lei de cibercrimes poderia ter entrado para a história com a participação direta da sociedade (o que faltou à audiência pública): o evento foi interrompido pela presença do governador em exercício próximo ao debate.”

Tux, the Linux penguin, holds a banner that reads “Say no to Online Surveillance”.

Jorge Araújo, a Brazilian judge behind the Direito e Trabalho blog, criticizes [Pt] the intention to create new crimes for the already bulging Brazilian Penal Code:

“Os defensores da lei estão errados ao buscar que se emplaque mais uma norma ao nosso combalido sistema jurídico, prevendo penas de prisão, quando sabemos que ladrões e assassinos são soltos diariamente justamente em virtude da falência de nosso sistema prisional […] Por outro lado para que se criminalize um delito é necessário que ele traga à sociedade um verdadeiro clamor, do tipo que antes de ser considerado crime ele já receba a censura da sociedade. […] Não é o que ocorre com os delitos que se pretendem penalizar. Pelo contrário muitas práticas que se pretendem penalizas são adotadas pela grande maioria dos presentes na Campus Party e desconhecidas pelo restante da população para o qual o computador é, quando muito, uma máquina de escrever sem papel.”

Many people wore red clown noses and protested against being turned into criminals by the Cybercrimes Bill.

Later on in the same post, Araújo criticizes the arguments used by Sergio Amadeu in his defense of online anonymity:

“o anonimato que se permite, e até exige, em regimes de exceção, como os regimes autoritários da China, Cuba, mas também de subjugação como dos próprios países árabes, como o Iraque em face dos Estados Unidos, não se pode confundir com um anonimato interno, que se pode voltar contra os demais cidadãos. Até porque não se cogita que atue anonimamente em um regime democrático sem um propósito escuso.”

In a comment on Araújo's post, Raquel Recuero [Pt] discusses the issue of anonymity and the possible uses of all information that will be made available to the government, and to whoever else takes hold of it, if the Cybercrimes Bill is approved, forcing Internet Service Providers and LAN-houses to keep a log of user activities:

“A lei prevê a obrigação dos provedores de registrar dados de navegação de todos os usuários. TODOS. Isso é, para mim, uma invasão de privacidade por presunção de que, ao navegar, estarei cometendo um crime. Dados esses que poderiam ser usados para outras coisas - penso, por exemplo, no valor publicitário de conhecer os hábitos de navegação das pessoas (eu detesto spam); nas investigações privadas de adultério (detetives); etc. etc.”

Araújo finishes his post criticizing Eduardo Azeredo for not showing up for the debate, sending his right arm man José Portugal instead:

“achei desrespeitosa a ausência do Senador Azeredo. Não há justificativa para que um representante do povo deixe de comparecer para prestar a este os esclarecimentos sobre a sua atividade. Dificilmente o senador encontrará uma reunião com tantos interessados na sua atividade parlamentar quanto no CParty, e encará-los e ouvi-los, mais do que um ato de cortesia, seria a sua obrigação.”

A participant holds his notebook with the slogan “Did you chicken out, Azeredo?”, after the confirmation that Eduardo Azeredo wouldn't attend the debate.

At the end of the debate, on being informed that there would be no questions to José Portugal and Fernando Botelho, the audience turned their backs on the speakers and left in protest while Portugal was still delivering his final speech.

All pictures in this post, except for the first, were taken by Daniel Duende, published by Daniel Padua and are available here under a Creative Commons licence.

Written by Daniel Duende · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Segundo ela, na semana anterior, os executivos seniors do canal nos EUA receberam cartas com severas considerações e críticas sérias em relação ao filme. As cartas foram enviadas pelo PSDB de Minas Gerais. O PSDB afirmava que meu filme tinha caráter político-partidário, que não representava a realidade do acontecido no estado e questionava minha conduta ética na produção do filme. Junto as cartas foram enviadas também cópias da versão em inglês do vídeo produzido pelo PSDB e postado no YouTube.

Many bloggers, such as Paulo Fehlauer from Na Rua (screenshot above) had uploaded the video and for over a month exhibited an error message. Meanwhile, Current TV launched a month long investigation into the allegations and into Florêncio's journalism procedures, resulting in Gagged in Brazil being put back online. André Deak [pt], who had interviewed Florêncio [pt] for his blog earlier this year, brings the news as a victory for freedom of press:

Em alguns lugares (especialmente na rede), parece que o jornalismo ainda é possível.

Released on the Current TV in UK on May 27, 2008, and in the US a week before, Gagged in Brazil had a Portuguese subtitled version uploaded on YouTube, triggering a huge reaction: its link made the rounds on e-mails, networking websites and the video achieved over 2,000 hits on Google, over 100,000 views on YouTube, not to mention the 6,000 hits on the Current TV version, in English.

Commenting on the film at the time of its release, Catatau [pt] says:

Salta aos olhos o enquadramento jornalístico de determinadas figuras políticas, como Aécio Neves e Lula. Enquanto para determinados políticos a linha editorial é branda, para outros a cobertura é implacável. Como se a imprensa escolhesse o rigor ou a parcialidade a partir de um jogo que foge aos olhos do espectador.

Soon after, Gagged in Brazil - The Other Side, the video response below, was posted on YouTube by the youth group at PSDB - and other six followed. The filmmaker has been accused of partisanship, data manipulation and non observation of journalistic principles. It also suggests that the documentary did not deserve that much attention because the filmmaker was just an expatriate Brazilian from Minas, not a reputed British journalist.

Freedom of press - an old issue

Gagged in Brazil was inspired by Liberdade, Essa Palavra (“Freedom, That Word”), a 2006 video report by then journalism student Marcelo Baêta, shot for his graduation dissertation. It linked the firing of five journalist in 2002 and 2003 to stories they wrote/broadcast that were critical of Aécio Neves. As Neves gets ready to run as presidential candidate in 2010, “the issue of press manipulation continues to unfold in Brazil”, discovers Elizabeth Tuttle during an interview with Marcelo Baêta for the Columbia Journalism Review. What's the relevance of his documentary now?

First, Neves is one of the main presidential hopefuls for the 2010 elections. Second, the international repercussions of my video-documentary are still reverberating. This past May, it was heavily featured on the Current TV documentary “Gagged in Brazil,” which has since been viewed on YouTube 50,000 times. In June, the governor’s PR department posted yet another video response, this time to the Current TV's video.

In a recent comment on the article above, reader Diógenes Pinto Carvalhaes claims that Columbia Journalism School should not have published such an interview without “showing ‘the other side' of this controversial subject”:

I thought this subject was buried in the past, but it returns again like a ghost. Why is it coming back? For the same reason that it has appeared in 2006… At that moment, the alleged censorship in Minas Gerais was a leitmotiv in the opposition campaign, when Aécio Neves was running for a second term. Macelo Baêta’s video was a precious item of propaganda against Aécio Neves and largely scattered by anonymous spams in the internet. Now, Aécio Neves is one of the names most seriously considered for nomination in the next Brazilian presidential campaign.

However, the case of media censorship in Minas Gerais is far from a buried issue. In the middle of the local election last September, the opposing news website ‘Novo Jornal' was taken down by Brazil's Public Ministry (state level prosecutors) on charges of anonymity, as reported by Global Voices. And not even blogs escape from politicians' attempts to gag those who try to have a voice on their own. Only last month, political scientist Fernando Massote [pt] was under threat of legal action by a local politician for replicating unfavorable news on his blog:

Informo que estou respondendo a interpelação judicial interposta pelo Sr. Marcio Lacerda. O candidato a prefeitura de BH me intima a confirmar conteúdos publicados no meu blog  www.massote.pro.br e me ameaça de processo por difamação, calúnia e injuria. Sendo assim, confirmo a autoria de todos os textos definitivos que foram postados e permaneceram no meu blog, da data em que foram publicados até hoje. Estes textos são muito conhecidos pela alta freqüência de visitantes à minha publicação eletrônica. A difusão do meu blog, como todos sabem, é uma conseqüência entre outros fatores, da grande crise da imprensa em Minas Gerais, causada também pela censura de que é vitima e que tem sido amplamente denunciada.

Written by Paula Góes · comments (5)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Over 50 bloggers, students and netizens participated in the flash mob last Friday at Avenida Paulista, one of the city's most important avenues and financial centers. The protest was organized through blogs and mostly twitter. Lúcia Freitas reports:

A postos, mostramos nossos cartazes. alguém de dentro do ônibus acena. Pessoas param nas calçadas de ambos os lados. Motos e carros buzinam. Ao comando, viramos para o outro lado (ímpar) da avenida. Os fotógrafos fazem farra. A gente diz em alto e bom som: Não!

In fact, due to bad weather and terrible traffic, many people only managed to get there late. Political Scientist Sérgio Amadeu [pt] says that these late comers demanded to be part of the protest, so a quick decision was made for another performance, this time attended by over 100 people:

Bom, como uma manifestação auto-organizada ela resolveu se auto-constituir de novo. A flashmob virou uma refreshmob.

Photo by Paulo Fehlauer who also has a video showing the protest at Avenida Paulista

On the day before, a public hearing was held in Brasília and some bloggers took the time to attend the debate (see a video and twitter reactions). They had their mouths closed with sellotape to protest against the over-surveillance on the Internet that the bill may bring if approved. Daniel Padua [pt] was there and said it had a positive outcome as the case against was very well laid by both specialists and members of parliament:

A força dos argumentos foi uma surpresa pros defensores do projeto, que acabaram soando ridículos e despreparados - como no caso do delegado da PF (alguma coisa Sobral) - que apresentou uma história na qual a PF tinha os IPs de suspeitos de pedofilia, mas só conseguiu prender 1/5 deles pela falta de um processo jurídico adequado, e foi questionado pelo deputado Paulo Teixeira: “bom, a PF tinha os IPs, não? então se vocês já conseguem os IPs das pessoas, porque precisam desse projeto de lei?”

Marcelo Träsel [pt] says that a battle was won but the fight goes ahead. He unveils whose interests are in fact behind the bill:

Porque no fim das contas é disso que se trata: os bancos estão tentando impor uma legislação estúpida para deixarem de assumir a responsabilidade por tornar seus sistemas de transação eletrônica mais seguros. Afinal, garantir a segurança de dados custa dinheiro. E dinheiro é o que os bancos deram, coincidentemente, para a campanha a senador de Azeredo e muitos outros deputados. Estão pouco ligando se vão emperrar o processo cultural ou o avanço da inclusão digital no Brasil.

According to João Carlos Caribé [pt], this public hearing, virtually the first open debate about the bill, was made possible through liaising by the organizers of an online petition [pt] in defense of freedom and progress of knowledge on the Brazilian Internet. It has been signed by over 121,400 citizens, which is not much, considering Brazil's nearly 200 million population. Gabriel Sadoco [pt] writes about it at this Saturday's blog carnival [pt] about politics and says that people should not be so apathetic regarding this and others issues:

E a esses brasileiros que não se incomodam com o que acontece no seu país. Que preferem assistir as tragédias do jornal antes da novela das oito e só servem pra fazer peso no mundo, acordem para a realidade e comecem a protestar, porque você ainda tem direito a isso. Não ao vigilantismo.
Privacidade e liberdade pra todo mundo!

Mário Amaya [pt] has designed the poster that many bloggers have been carrying with them, which can be downloaded and printed out. He is also the designer of many of the online banners that have spread on the blogosphere.

Freedom on the Internet

Written by Paula Góes · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

A pressa de Azeredo é para evitar a análise das consequências do seu projeto. Sem dúvida, os artigos 285-A, 285-B e 22 atendem aos ineteresses da MPAA, da RIAA e das companhias de TV fechada. Atacam milhões de internautas e querem barrar as práticas de compartilhamento de arquivos, principalmente pelas redes P2P.

Senator Azeredo's rushing is in order to avoid analysis of the consequences of his bill. Certainly, articles 285-A, 285-B and 22 meet the interests of MPAA, the RIAA and TV coorporations. They are an attack on millions of Internet users and are meant to bar the practice of file sharing, mainly through P2P networks.

Some bloggers became more optimistic after the bill was amended. Têmis, from Doutora Responde [pt], a blog that intends to answer reader's questions about law in a simple way, tries to demystify the 13 new cyber crimes. She concludes that after the amendments, the bill is passable, unless the House of Representatives decides not to approve the changes proposed:

O usuário da internet que não rouba senhas, que não invade redes, que não quebra redes para acessar conteúdo protegido e fazer cópias não autorizadas, que não acessa e divulga conteúdo de pedofilia, enfim, a grande maioria, pode ficar tranquila quanto a aprovação do projeto de lei DE CONFORMIDADE COM O ATUAL SUBSTITUTIVO.

The Internet user who doesn't steal passwords, doesn't break into networks, doesn't destroy networks to access protected content and doesn't make unauthorized copies, those who don't access and disclose paedophile content, finally, the vast majority, can keep calm with regards to the approval of the bill conforming to its latest, substitute version.

However, according to others, the situation deserves, indeed, much concern. Alexandre Oliva, Board member of the Free Software Foundation Latin America, claims we are dealing with a “horrible authoriterrorism and on-line surveillance bill” approved by the Senate under the pretense of fighting pedophilia. In an announcement called Authoriterrorism and surveillance, the Brazilian way, the foundation further explains its views:

It further establishes jail time for such broad activities as unauthorized access to computer systems, networks, and data stored in them. In spite of being justified and promoted by banks on the grounds of stopping criminals from obtaining, selling or destroying information through fraud or exploitation of vulnerabilities, it is worded so ambiguously that it can be easily abused by suppliers of electronic equipment (computers such as servers, desktops, laptops, video games, cell phones, digital cameras, media players and recorders, etc) and of digitally-encoded information (text, audio, video, software, etc). Abuses may range from legal threats to actual jail time for people who unlock video games or cell phones to install software not approved by the supplier; who work around deliberate defects in media players or recorders to gain access to their own songs or movies stored in them; who use copyrighted works in ways that do not infringe on copyrights, but that authoriterrorists would like to outlaw.

André Lemos [pt], Federal University of Bahia's Cyberculture Center Coordinator and visiting Professor at Canadian University of Alberta and McGill University, adds that the bill changes very little for criminals, but a lot for regular Internet users, who will not know if what they are doing is legal or not and will feel as if under 24/7 surveillance:

Por exemplo, se eu disseminar um vírus sem saber, poderei ser preso? posso trocar arquivos entre meus pares mesmo em redes P2P (minhas fotos, minhas músicas, meus arquivos de textos) sem pedir autorização prévia? Como os provedores vão interpretar essas trocas? Posso copiar uma parte do texto de um blog e colar no meu? Ou seja, ela cria um sentimento de insegurança e de medo generalizado. Isso bloqueia a imaginação e a criatividade.

For example, if I disseminate a virus without my knowledge, would I be arrested? Can I exchange my files with my mates in P2P networks (my pictures, music, files) without asking for prior permission? How will the ISP providers understand these exchanges? Can I copy an excerpt of a text from a blog and paste it into mine? In other words, it [the bill] creates a feeling of insecurity and general fear. It blocks imagination and creativity.

Lawyer and Sociologist Ariel Foina [pt], who specializes in Criminal Electronic Law and is a researcher on Internet social phenomena and Cyberspace Sociology, has analyzed every point of the bill in a comprehensive post, and comments on the clumsily-worded articles and how they can be dangerously misinterpreted:

na verdade os relatores do PL no Senado afirmam que a idéia aqui não era criminalizar a transmissão de Mp3 ou outros arquivos protegidos por direitos autorais por meio da Internet sem a devida autorização… sinceramente, só me lembro dos marcianos em Marte Ataca dizendo “Nos viemos em paz!” com a rizadinha característica no fundo. […] Além do mais, o texto do artigo é excessivamente genérico o que é “dado”, meu endereço de e-mail é um dado? meu número de cpf seria um dado? um trecho de uma reportagem não deixa de ser um dado… um resultado de uma pesquisa, um percentual de um infográfico qualquer é um dado… divulgar isso, “transferindo-o” seria crime! Um eventual estado autoritário (não que o nosso seja) poderia usar isso como forma de perseguir jornalistas que conseguissem informações não públicas e as publicassem… pessoalmente acho o conceito de “dado” algo abstrato de mais para estar escrito numa Lei… Leis são feitas para serem interpretadas, para dar “segurança jurídica” à toda a sociedade… que segurança se tem quando a letra da lei permite leituras amplamente distintas?

in fact the Bill's authors at Senate say that the idea here was not to criminalize the transmission of MP3 files or other copyright protected files through the Internet without proper authorization … honestly, it only reminds me of the Martians in Mars Attacks saying “We come in peace!” with a little a smirk in the background. […] Moreover, the wording of the article is too generic, what is “data”, is my e-mail address data? would my individual identification number number be one? an excerpt of a news story is still a piece of data … a piece of any info-graphic is data … to disclose it, by “transferring it”, would be a crime! Any authoritarian state (hopefully not ours) could use it as a way to prosecute journalists who obtained non-public information and published it… Personally, I think the concept of “data” is something too abstract to be written in a law .. Laws are made to be interpreted, to give “legal certainty” to the whole society … what security is there when the wording of the law allows widely distinct interpretations?

Bloggers and Internet users demand at very least a long overdue debate, if not the scrapping of the bill all together. The online petition [pt] in defense of freedom and progress of knowledge on the Brazilian Internet has been signed by over 70,500 people - an extra 20,500 signatures since our last report three days ago. The hope is that at least 100,000 will be enough to sensitize the House of Representatives to the need of treading carefully. However, a lot more can be done on an individual basis, as suggests Lucia Freitas [pt]:

Se você é preguiçoso, acha que não vai fazer a diferença, te conto: faz. Que tal a gente conseguir mais de 100 mil assinaturas na petição? Que tal a gente se comunicar com cada um dos deputados de nosso Estado e deixar clara a nossa posição? Que tal a gente propor a discussão de um código que permita prender ladrões (virtuais e reais), pedófilos e outros vermes e ainda por cima continuarmos em rede, sem drama?

If you are lazy, thinking that it will not make a difference, I tell you: it does. Why don't we get more than 100 thousand signatures to the petition? Why don't we talk to each of the council members of our states and make our position clear? Why don't we propose the discussion of a code that allows thieves (virtual and real), paedophiles and other vermin to be arrested and still continue online, without drama?

If approved in the House of Representatives, the final decision is in the hands of the Brazilian president, who could still veto the bill.

Resources in English

The Portuguese text of the proposal is available here, and an English translation by Pablo Lorenzoni reviewed by Alexandre Oliva, member of the Free Software Foundation Latin America, is now also available. See also previous Global Voices Coverage on the issue in May 2007 and November 2007).

Written by Paula Góes · comments (1)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper