The Debate on the Lawful and Unlawful Internet: freedom of expression and removal of content

Abstract

The present work sought an analysis of freedom of expression on the Internet, based on survey of the techniques used by magistrates to resolve conflicts in which it is required to remove content from the internet, in addition to examining the effectiveness of judicial decisions and the accountability of ombudsmen. Considering the technical structure of internet operation, the limits of freedom of expression have been confronted in accordance of normative acts, jurisprudence and doctrines. Was evaluated the possibility unavailability of content, on the basis of the requirements established in the Civil Internet Framework, including by way of an injunction. At the end, a chapter was devoted to the forms of civil accountability of ombudsmen and their legal protection. It was concluded: that the limits of freedom of expression should be determined on a case-by-case, through the subjective positioning of the magistrate, that will consider, in the concrete case, interests, values and principles conflicting; that the compulsory removal of internet content will depend on the illegality of the content, recognized by the judge, of judicial decision and of indication of  URL, unless the content deemed unlawful violates the sexual intimacy of another person; and that in most cases the low efficacy of sentences that determine the removal of content occurs by the slowness of the Judiciary and the modus operandi of the internet. In respect to the removel by way of injunction, the work concluded that it is not in any case that it will be applicable, at the risk of setting up prior censorship. As for whether accountability of the ombudspersons, the general rule is that responsibility is subjective, except when they contain prior control of content posted by their users.