Proverbial

Slashdot might have jumped the gun a few days ago, but what was then an exaggeration is now reality: all backbone networks in Brazil have been notified by a São Paulo court to either shut down access to all instances of Daniela Cicarelli’s video on YouTube, or either block the site entirely.

So far, except for Embratel, all companies have installed filters in their backbones preventing access to all of YouTube, in what is a surprisingly quick response on the part of companies otherwise known for their inertia in respecting court orders.

It seems that even though São Paulo state Supreme Court Justice Ênio Santarelli Zuliani confirmed (.br) his order only determined the blocking of the video itself, the wording on the decision was confusing, leading phone companies to believe the only way to comply would be by blocking the entire domain. Even more remarkable is that in face of such a contradictory and confusing ruling, companies could file an “order embargo” (.br), claiming the decision to be illegal and/or unclear, barring its effect until the matter is properly reviewed.

Regardless of these companies’ unexpected conduct, Brazilians are now left wondering what such a precedent might mean for freedom of speech in a supposedly free and democratic country. If a state court has the power to determine the blocking of an entire site for such a stupid reason, there should be no reason why, for example, some state’s Electoral Justice couldn’t determine a preventive banning of similar sites (they’d most certainly have a daily updated list) in election times, to avoid its use in circumventing laws regulating political propaganda.

Also, in Brazil we have the dreadful “apology to crime” law, which determines that defending any illegal conduct is, in itself, a crime. This way, it seems that teaching people how to use a proxy server to circumvent the blocking, or even pointing to such a site, would be a crime.

Not to mention that by accessing YouTube through such a proxy server one would be in violation of a court order. Which, I believe, could be considered either your crime - with some dire consequences, the first of which the ISP considering you’ve breached your contract - or the ISP’s for not properly monitoring and preventing such things - as if it were possible (but no lawyer or judge, so far, seems to understand anything about how the internet actually works).

Considering the notification stated the blocking should go on for as long as the court deemed necessary, and that phone companies don’t seem too eager to confront the decision, it seems we’ll have quite some time to mull over this situation. My hope is that either Google gets really pissed off by this and brings all its money, power and lawyers upon Ms. Cicarelli and the Brazilian Judiciary, or this gets enough traction in national and international media that the phone companies will feel compelled to act in the better interest of their clients. In fact, is it just me or is Google’s silence in this whole affair also a little troubling?

UPDATE: The Justice himself seems to have understood his wording was confusing and now issued a new notification, in very plain and direct portuguese, calling for the quick removal (.br) of the blocking. He says, though, that the demonstration of how Brazilian law will prevail over any foreign site or company was a good thing to take from this episode.