The arrest of a top Google executive isreviving a debate about Brazilian laws that hold services such as YouTuberesponsible for the videos posted on them, making the country a hotbed ofattempts to stifle digital content.
Legal experts said Thursday that Google violated a judge'sorder to take down videos on its YouTube subsidiary that target Brazilianpolitical candidates — and that the judge was completely within the law inissuing the arrest warrant.
But they said the arrest of Fabio Jose Silva Coelho, the headof Google Inc.'s Brazil operations, underscores the need to modernize laws thattreat offensive material on the Internet like material that is carried by newspapers,television and radio, holding platforms such as Google responsible foruser-provided content.
Coelho was released shortly after his arrest Wednesday andagreed to appear before a court at an as-yet undetermined time. On Google'sofficial Brazil blog, Coelho wrote Thursday night that the company was forcedto block the video in the case for which he was arrested after the company lostits final appeal.
"We are deeply disappointed that we have never had thefull opportunity to argue in court that these were legitimate free speechvideos and should remain available in Brazil," he wrote. "Despite allthis, we will continue to campaign for free expression globally."
Legal experts said the case cast a spotlight on problemswithin Brazil's legal system.
"Our laws trying to govern the Internet areoutdated," said Jose Guilherme Zagallo, head of the Brazilian barassociation's commission focusing on information technology law. "It's notclear who is responsible for content, and that creates uncertainty for Internetcompanies, users and judges, who are left to interpret laws not written for theInternet."
Brazil's strict electoral laws limit what critics can say ontelevision, radio and the Internet about candidates for office. On severaloccasions in recent years, media outlets have faced stiff fines for breakingthe laws, but few if any officials were arrested.
Google's alleged infractions, however, are more widespread,simply because of its omnipresence. Ahead of municipal elections in Brazil nextmonth, Google has received requests in more than 20 states to remove videosthat allegedly violate those restrictions.
Google has faced a landslide of content-removal requestsaround the globe, including in the U.S., but Brazil makes more requests thanany other nation, according to the company's summary of all the demands. Mostsuch demands relate to legitimate attempts to enforce laws on issues rangingfrom personal privacy to hate speech.
Brazilian government agencies alone submitted a total of 194content-removal requests during the final half of last year, according to asummary released by Google in June. Running just behind that was the UnitedStates, where police, prosecutors, courts and other government agenciessubmitted 187 requests to remove content over the same period.
Google says it complied fully or partially with 54 percent ofBrazilian removal requests in the last half of 2011. Most requests involvedYouTube and charges of defamation. Other requests involved the socialnetworking site Orkut and requests to remove illegal content, such as childpornography.
Separately this week, another Brazilian court ordered YouTubeto remove clips of an anti-Islam film that has been blamed for deadly protestsby Muslims around the globe. Google is now selectively blocking the video clipsin countries that include Libya and Egypt. Google has said it made the decisionto block the video in such places due to "the sensitive situations"there.
Brazil's legal action targeting a Google executive, whilerare, is not unprecedented. In 2010 in Italy, a judge held three Googleexecutives criminally responsible for an online video of an autistic teenagerbeing bullied. The executives were given six-month suspended sentences.
A judge in Mato Grosso do Sul state ordered Coelho arrestedbecause the company had not removed YouTube videos making incendiary commentsabout an alleged paternity suit aimed at Alcides Bernal, who is running formayor of the city of Campo Grande.
"Being a platform, Google is not responsible for thecontent posted on its site," the company said in a statement this week.
Bruno Magrani, a researcher at the Center for Technology andSociety at Rio de Janeiro's Getulio Vargas Foundation, said that unlike theUnited States and some other countries, Brazil doesn't have legal protectionsfor online service providers that host content provided by third parties.
There is pending legislation that would provide someprotection for intermediaries such as Google. Earlier this month the companyjoined Facebook and online retail site MercadoLivre in sending an open lettersupporting the passage of the law, called Marco Civil.
"Marco Civil establishes that providers of Internetapplications are not responsible for content published by users," theletter says. "Various economic, social and legislative factors justify notholding providers responsible; without that protection, the use of onlineapplications and platforms would be limited, which would be a loss tousers."
While the measure would create some protections, it would notresolve the legal tangle facing Google's Coelho or prevent the situation fromrecurring, Magrani said.
The Marco Civil is general legislation, and could still betrumped by more specific electoral laws. Those laws treat an Internet platformsuch as Google as if it were a newspaper or a television station, holding itresponsible for its content.
"It's a very serious situation," Magrani said."Brazil needs to change its electoral law to accommodate the nature andthe characteristics of the Internet. The Internet cannot be treated in the sameway as traditional media."
First, he said, an Internet company cannot evaluate all thecontent it carries in the same way a newspaper or television channel canbecause of the sheer volume.
Second, "the Internet has no editor. And we don't want aneditor," Magrani said.
He said asking a company to determine what users can upload isa dangerous step that could undermine freedom of information.
"If we continue threatening to jail heads of companieswho don't verify content before it goes on the Internet, we will end up livingin a state of censorship," he said. "If the company is running a highrisk, it'll start posting less and less material. ... If companies start tofeel afraid of retaliation, they'll start censoring."
The lack of protections for Internet platforms can also have achilling effect on the development of small- and medium-size high-techcompanies in Brazil that don't have the resources of big companies like Google,Magrani said.
The federal government is investing heavily to promote thetech sector, but Brazilian legislators need to diminish legal risks forstartups, he said.
Maria Clara Garcaz, a 20-year-old university student in Rio deJaneiro, expressed worries about the court action.
"It's like we live in a silent, disguised dictatorship.When we had our real dictatorship, at least you knew for certain what you couldand couldn't say," Garcaz said. "Political speech can be censored atany time and it's moving into the Internet, exactly where people speakout."