Policy by judicialisation: the institutional framework for intermediary liability in Brazil

Clara Iglesias Keller
{"title":"Policy by judicialisation: the institutional framework for intermediary liability in Brazil","authors":"Clara Iglesias Keller","doi":"10.1080/13600869.2020.1792035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper offers an institutional assessment of the intermediary liability system currently operative in Brazil. According to article 19 of the Marco Civil, content sharing platforms shall only be held liable for third party infringement if they fail to act upon it under a court ruling. This is a court-centred system, and as such, it is praised for its benefits to freedom of expression, the assumption being that such a safe harbour should create fewer incentives for intermediaries to overblock content. The goal of this paper is to analyse this regulatory choice beyond the freedom of expression trade-off, considering the institutional characteristics of the judicial decision-making process and how they can affect the broader online content regulation context. It builds on the literature dedicated to the relationship between judicialisation and public policies in order to accrue the practical implications of the judiciary’s legitimacy, institutional capacities and selectivity for the aforementioned governance system.","PeriodicalId":53660,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","volume":"57 1","pages":"185 - 203"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Law, Computers and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2020.1792035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper offers an institutional assessment of the intermediary liability system currently operative in Brazil. According to article 19 of the Marco Civil, content sharing platforms shall only be held liable for third party infringement if they fail to act upon it under a court ruling. This is a court-centred system, and as such, it is praised for its benefits to freedom of expression, the assumption being that such a safe harbour should create fewer incentives for intermediaries to overblock content. The goal of this paper is to analyse this regulatory choice beyond the freedom of expression trade-off, considering the institutional characteristics of the judicial decision-making process and how they can affect the broader online content regulation context. It builds on the literature dedicated to the relationship between judicialisation and public policies in order to accrue the practical implications of the judiciary’s legitimacy, institutional capacities and selectivity for the aforementioned governance system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
司法化政策:巴西中介责任的制度框架
本文对目前在巴西运行的中介责任制度进行了制度评估。根据《民商法》第19条规定,内容分享平台只有在法院裁定不采取行动的情况下,才对第三方侵权行为承担责任。这是一个以法院为中心的系统,因此,它因其对言论自由的好处而受到称赞,人们认为,这样一个安全港应该会减少中介机构过度屏蔽内容的动机。本文的目标是分析这种超越言论自由权衡的监管选择,考虑司法决策过程的制度特征以及它们如何影响更广泛的在线内容监管背景。它以专门研究司法化与公共政策之间关系的文献为基础,以便积累司法合法性、机构能力和对上述治理制度的选择性的实际影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Certification as guidance for data protection by design Regulatory options for vehicle telematics devices: balancing driver safety, data privacy and data security Electronic justice as a mechanism for ensuring the right of access to justice in a pandemic: the experience of Ukraine and the EU Algorithms patrolling content: where’s the harm? Editorial for special issue. BILETA Conference 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1