A bill that aims to combat the various forms of disinformation, erroneously called “fake news” is currently being processed in the National Congress. The project has positive points. However, it brings some aspects that are worrying and discriminatory, and can have the reverse effect of increasing misinformation, instead of decreasing it.
An example in this sense is the fact that the bill creates a type of citizen in Brazil who can be immunized against any type of content moderation, policies or terms of use of the platforms. This happens through a paragraph that determines that “parliamentary immunity extends to social networks”.
That mere wording causes shivers. It can be applied as carte blanche so that parliamentarians can say and do what they want on social media, without suffering any type of moderation.
This is especially problematic as freedom of expression is not an absolute right. For example, incitement to violence is not protected by freedom of expression. Neither does racial or religious discrimination. Likewise, speeches that are capable of jeopardizing the physical integrity of individuals or populations are not allowed.
These restrictions on freedom of expression are included in all international treaties dealing with the subject and to which Brazil is a party. Among them the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These treaties, it is worth mentioning, have a force superior to that of common laws in Brazil.
Another problem with extending parliamentary immunity to social networks is that these are private entities. Any type of immunity is only enforceable in relation to the State and public agents. It makes no sense to have immunity in relation to the performance of private entities. The figure of parliamentary immunity —which is important— is intended to preserve the exercise of the mandate against the interference of other public agents, members of the political body of the State. Not against society.
An analogous situation would be to extend parliamentary immunity against shopping malls. The parliamentarian endowed with these “superpowers” could then enter any mall in the country, head to the local food court and start swearing, yelling at patrons, cursing them or even threatening them.
The mall could do nothing against this congressman. Replace the word shopping with social media and the effect is the same. Misrepresenting the concept of immunity in this way, using it wrongly against private entities, interferes with the sphere of rights and autonomy of society, violating the constitution.
It is unacceptable that there is a class of citizens with this kind of “superpower”, free to do whatever they want on social media, without being able to be bothered and moderated, even when they incite violence, violate the law and international treaties. In other words, the fake news bill institutionalizes the “wallet” phenomenon.
As all of us Brazilian citizens know well, the wallet happens when a public agent abuses this position to obtain favors and privileges, including with respect to private entities. In other words, the fake news project, instead of defending citizens against abuse, wants to defend the political class against the scrutiny of society. It should be renamed the Fake News and Political Irresponsibility Act.
reader
It’s over Make playlists on cassette tapes
Already Make playlists on streaming services
It’s coming Bots pretending to be people and making fake playlists on music services
I have over 8 years of experience in the news industry. I have worked for various news websites and have also written for a few news agencies. I mostly cover healthcare news, but I am also interested in other topics such as politics, business, and entertainment. In my free time, I enjoy writing fiction and spending time with my family and friends.
