The most recent version of Provisional Measures 1,068 was released on the DOU on the eve of the celebration of the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and although it came as a surprise to many, it actually represents another measure in a well thought out and carefully designed campaign to empower All those who use disinformation, deliberate and targeted distortions of facts, and various acts of discursive abuse of power (although again the rationale is to defend free speech and democracy) ultimately serve the authoritarian and corrosive agenda of democratic institutions.
This interpretation is unusual for a minority, but it seems particularly Chinese Overseas America Number Data correct considering that various public and private actors have not only called for strong demonstrations, but also that the direction seems particularly correct. Federation, for example - and this is absolutely decisive and worrying data - speeches (offensive and conveying a series of so-called fake news), and even specific actions directed against authorities that are part of the executive branch of the Republic and against them The institutions represented are the National Assembly and the Federal Supreme Court. Undoubtedly more serious are calls for military intervention, coups against democracy, and even calls for violence.
Now, against this backdrop, it would be naive at best to seriously believe that the issuance of MP 1,068 has nothing to do with the legalization (or at least the encouragement and facilitation) of conduct of this nature.
Indeed, the reaction to the announcement of MP 1,068 (hereinafter referred to as MP) was almost immediate and manifested itself in the most diverse ways and means, whether through statements by politicians, academics, articles in traditional media, social networks, etc. among people. However, it is of particular significance that, barring better judgment, to date the parties have proposed six (06) directly unconstitutional actions which are being processed in the STF, all of which call into question the constitutional legitimacy of the MPs mentioned, namely ADI 6996 (PDT), ADI 6995 (Partido Novo), ADI 6994 (PT), ADI 6993 (PSDB), ADI 6992 (Solidarity) and ADI 6991 (PSB), as well as the petition (still on page 06.09), Senator Writ of Autonomy issued by Alessandro Vieira.
Meanwhile, on Thursday 9 September, Minister Rosa Weber, in her capacity as Rapporteur, signed a deadline of 48 hours for the President of the Republic, the Attorney General of the Federation and the Attorney General of the Republic to express their opinions. Opinions expressed by members of Congress.
In addition, it is worth noting that the OAB Federal Council’s Constitutional Studies Committee has developed, published and forwarded an opinion pointing out the same series of constitutional inconsistencies among members of Congress as the above actions.
Although the content of CFOAB's requests and opinions are more or less different, the central points raised and questioned here are very tightly summarized, but still general, and all revolve around the violation of a series of principles. and rights constitutional provisions, in particular freedom of expression and information, free enterprise and free competition, democratic and electoral procedures, rule of law, prohibition of frustration.
It is therefore the duty of public authorities to ensure compliance with the Constitution and national legislation, in particular with regard to the principles, guarantees, rights and obligations regarding the use of the Internet in Brazil, to ensure that the relationship between users and social network providers takes place in the an environment marked by legal certainty and respect for fundamental rights. 6. To this end, a number of provisions have been added to the Internet Civil Convention that relate more specifically to the rights and guarantees of social media users, including the right to obtain information regarding the use of social media users Clear, open and objective information on any policies, procedures, measures and tools. The purpose of possible content moderation and the exercise of the right to dispute, adequate defense and appeal in the event of content moderation by the social network provider.