What “the Brazilian Judge Who Changed His Mind” Actually Said

“Boycott Cicarelli! Brazil Without Censorship!” But the real culprit may be Telefonica. Source: PT.Pravda.ru.

The referring prosecutor is grateful to the zeal the operators displayed when they received the order from the judge of the first instance, in acting quickly to comply. It is to be understood [it is represented] that they blocked the entire site only because of the technical difficulty of devising a filter that would only filter out the video of the couple. But that was not the import of the order given, which stated that operators must block the specific electronic addresses of the videos subject to a judicial order that was being flouted. Indeed, no reference was made to [or authorization given for — Ed.] cutting off the entire site in the event partial blocking was technically unfeasible. –Judge Zuliani, STJ-SP

Good old Consultor Jurídico, which publishes on the Web site of the Estadão – the only newspaper to get the recent “Army on the streets of Rio” pseudostory right the first time around — is the only publication to produce the actual public documents in response to the noise machine mounted in support of this illegal blocking of YouTube here in Brazil.

I am going to translate for you, in the spirit of Abe Simpson.

Let’s set the record straight here, shall we?

Citizen journalists: Always check this kind of story against the original documents.

And be very, very suspicious when news services do not provide access to the original documents they purport to be gisting for your convenience.

Both IDG Now! and Globo’s G1 portal failed to clarify, for example, that “the court order” in question was actually two documents, one contradicting the other: The finding of the desembargador and the order issued by the juiz de direito.

In many cases, news outlets here even blatantly and unambiguously misidentified the latter as the finding issued by the former.

Believe me, I am making a list of those, too.

The bottom line in this story being that Google has already produced a mechanism for blocking specific content in response to lawful orders from local authorities.

As everybody who follows tech newsflow even freaking casually already freaking knows full freaking well.

Which makes Telefonica and Brasil Telecom, and their lobbyists, look an awful lot like lying liars who lie, and then lie about the fact that they were lying, I’m afraid.

This is a hasty one-take translation, so please: no wagering. Note, for example, that I still tend to commit a brain-fart every now and then around terms like desembargador and relator.

Basically, I think, the former is the judge in his role as trier of fact and issuer of stays, in the first instance, while the latter is the same judge in his role as the reporter of the case to the plenary session of the judicial conference, where such matters get a final resolution, by vote, as in our Supreme Court.

The juiz de direito here, then, is the judge who writes and issues the order based on the determination of the desembargador. His only role at this point is to certify it kosher as to form and procedure, not to act as a kangaroo-court appeals judge on his own initiative.

Unless I am mistaken. But that is what I understand.

In this case, then, the JDD has basically pulled a Dawn Eden on us, I think it is fair to say, and as will be buzzed about in lawyer-bars all over town.

Got it? Good.

Ou seja

Desembargador do TJ-SP manda desbloquear YouTube

por Maurício Cardoso

O desembargador Ênio Santarelli Zuliani, do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo, determinou nesta terça-feira (9/1) o desbloqueio do site de vídeos YouTube. Ele mandou “restabelecer o sinal do site YouTube, solicitando que as operadoras restabeleçam o acesso e informem ao Tribunal as razões técnicas da suposta impossibilidade de serem bloqueados os endereços eletrônicos”.

Judge Zuliani ordered the unblocking of YouTube today (Jan. 9). He ordered “that the signal of the YouTube site be restored, and that the operators reestablish access and inform this Court of the technical reasons for the alleged impossibility of blocking [specific] online addresses.”

Given that URI is an acronym for Unique Resource Identifier, yes, do explain that to us.

Telefonica explanation for why it blocked YouTube. The wording may well come back to haunt them, I predict.

No despacho, o desembargador explica sua decisão que acabou tirando do ar o site de vídeos YouTube. Segundo Zuliani, a decisão foi motivada pela negativa do site em cumprir uma decisão judicial e que só foi aplicada por uma suposta dificuldade em bloquear apenas o acesso ao vídeo das cenas de namoro na praia da modelo Daniela Cicarelli.

In his order, the judge explains his decision, under which [sic] YouTube wound up being taken off the air. According to Zuliani, the decision was motivate by the site’s refusal to comply with a judicial order, and [that the total blockage] was only applied because of an alleged difficulty in blocking only the video with scenes showing [Generic Human Barbie No. 8] making love on the beach.

This reporter gets it wrong, note.

Zuliani sustenta mais uma vez, como já havia feito anteriormente em entrevistas à imprensa, que ordenou apenas que fossem tomadas “providências que impeçam o acesso dos internautas brasileiros ao vídeo das filmagens dos autores da ação”. E acrescenta em outro item de seu despacho: “Todavia, é forçoso reconhecer que não foi determinado o bloqueio do sinal do site YouTube”.

Zuliani maintains once again, as he had already done in interviews conceded to the press, that he had ordered only that “measures be taken to prevent access by Brazilian internet users to the video showing the plaintiffs in this case.” And he adds in another part of his order: “Still, it is vital to recognize that the blocking of the entire YouTube Web site was never ordered.”

O desembargador afirma que tomou conhecimento que as operadoras de conexão internacional à internet bloquearam o acesso ao site do YouTube e não ao vídeo de Cicarelli, mas que isso se deve a dificuldades técnicas de bloquear apenas o vídeo.

The judge states that he was informed that Internet operators responsible for international connections had blocked access to the entire YouTube site and not just the video of [Generic Barbie No. 8], but that this was due to technical difficulties in blocking only the video.

Das cinco empresas que operam os troncos de conexão internacional (backbone), a Brasil Telecom e a Telefônica já foram notificadas judicialmente e chegaram a bloquear o acesso ao site.

Of the five companies that operate international Internet trunks (backbones), Brasil Telecom and Telefonica [were the only ones receiving the order that] actually blocked access to the Web site.

Leia o despacho

AGRV.Nº: 488.184-4/3

Relator Des. ÊNIO SANTARELLI ZULIANI (4ª Câmara Direito Privado)

COMARCA: SÃO PAULO

AGTE. : RENATO AUFIERO MALZONI FILHO

AGDO. : YOUTUBE INC.

Vistos.

1. Tomei conhecimento do bloqueio do site Yotube, para cumprir decisão de minha autoria.

I have learned that YouTube had been blocked, in order to comply with a decision I made.

Observo que realmente concedi efeito ativo ao agravo interposto por Renato Aufiero Malzoni Filho, no sentido de serem adotadas providências que impeçam o acesso dos internautas brasileiros ao vídeo das filmagens dos autores da ação [Renato e Daniella Cicarelli Lemos] na praia de Cádiz, na Espanha.

I note that, yes, I did take action on a complaint filed by [Generic São Paulo Family-Business Heir and Mafia Princeling No. 47], in that I ordered that measures were to be taken to prevent access by Brazilian Internet users to a video showing the plaintiffs on a beach in Cadiz, Spain.

Hey, isn’t Telefonica a Spanish company? Barbie No. 8 used to date Ronaldo — once known as Ronaldinho, but then he, er, grew out — the billion-dollar crackback for Real Madrid.

Tal determinação decorre do poder concedido ao juiz para empregar meios de coerção indiretos [art. 461, § 5º, do CPC] no sentido de obter efetivo cumprimento das decisões judiciais. No caso, há um Acórdão do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo [AgIn. 472.738-4], deferindo tutela antecipada para interditar toda e qualquer atividade, da internet, de exploração da imagem dos autores, por evidenciar ofensa aos direitos da personalidade.

Hizzoner cites authorities here, like any boring lawyer.

2. É preciso dispor que a questão não diz respeito mais ao vídeo de Cicarelli, como ficou conhecida a matéria, porque o que está em análise é a respeitabilidade de uma decisão judicial. O Youtube não cumpre a sentença, o que constitui ofensa ao art. 5º, XXXV, da CF, uma ameaça ao sistema jurídico. As sentenças são emitidas para serem executadas.

It is necessary to add that the issue has nothing to do with the [Barbie No. 8] video, as the work in question came to be known, but rather is a matter of compliance with a judicial order. YouTube did not comply, which is an offense under Article 5, XXXV, of the Constitutions — “a threat to the judicial system.” Judgments are issued in order to be obeyed.

3. O bloqueio do site está gerando uma série de comentários, o que é natural em virtude de ser uma questão pioneira, sem apoio legislativo. O incidente serviu para confirmar que a Justiça poderá determinar medidas restritivas, com sucesso, contra as empresas, nacionais e estrangeiras, que desrespeitarem as decisões judiciais. Nesse contexto, o resultado foi positivo.

The blocking of the cite has been much commented, which is only natural given that we are dealing with a pioneering issue here, without legislative support. The incident served to affirm that the courts may successfully determine restrictive measures against companies who disrespect judicial decisions. In that respect, the result was positive.

4. Todavia, é forçoso reconhecer que não foi determinado o bloqueio do sinal do site Yotube. Essa determinação, que é possível de ser tomada em caráter preventivo, como esclarece o jurista português JÓNATAS E. M. MACHADO [Liberdade de expressão: dimensões constitucionais da esfera pública no sistema privado, Universidade de Coimbra, 2002, p. 1123], deve ser emitida com clara fundamentação e com total transparência sobre o direito de liberdade de expressão e informação, que não comporta censura [art. 220, § 1º, da CF]. Impedir divulgação de notícias falsas, injuriosas ou difamatórias, não constitui censura judicial. Porém, a interdição de um site pode estimular especulações nesse sentido, diante do princípio da proporcionalidade, ou seja, a razoabilidade de interditar um site, com milhares de utilidades e de acesso de milhões de pessoas, em virtude de um vídeo de um casal.

However, it is important to recognize that the total blocking of the YouTube URL was never ordered. [He cites precedent which says that such a measure is possible, but subject to freedom of expression and other tests designed to avoid "judicial censorship."] Preventing the publication of false, injurious and defamatory information, for example, does not constitute judicial censorship. [But in this case, blocking the entire site would have been disproportionate and unfair to site users.]

5. O relator agradece o empenho com que as operadoras agiram quando receberam os ofícios do Juízo de Primeiro Grau, para que fosse cumprida a decisão. Acredita-se que o fechamento completo do sinal de acesso ocorreu por dificuldades técnicas de ser criado o filtro que impeça o acesso ao vídeo do casal. Mas, não foi essa a determinação, pois o que se ordenou foi o emprego de mecanismo que bloqueasse o acesso a endereços eletrônicos que divulgam o vídeo, cuja proibição foi determinada por decisão judicial. Não há, inclusive, referência para corte do sinal na hipótese de ser inviável a providência determinada.

The referring prosecutor is grateful to the zeal the operators displayed when they received the order from the judge of the first instance, in acting quickly to comply. It is to be understood [it is represented] that they blocked the entire site only because of the technical difficulty of devising a filter that would only filter out the video of the couple. But that was not the import of the order given, which stated that operators must block the specific electronic addresses of the videos subject to a judicial order that was being flouted. Indeed, no reference was made to [or authorization given for -- Ed.] cutting off the entire site in the event partial blocking was technically unfeasible.

6. Para que ocorra execução sem equívocos, determina o relator que se expeça ofício ao digno Juízo para que mande restabelecer o sinal do site Yotube, solicitando que as operadoras restabeleçam o acesso e informem ao Tribunal as razões técnicas da suposta impossibilidade de serem bloqueados os endereços eletrônicos.

So that the order may be executed without error, the referring prosecutor requests that the Judge order that the site YouTube be unblocked, requiring operators to restore access inform this Court of the technical reasons for the alleged impossibility of blocking [specific] URLs.

Yes, explain that, would you? I would really like to hear how these people try to spin that line of crap.

7. Fica registrado não estar excluída a imposição, pela Turma Julgadora, de medidas drásticas, como o bloqueio preventivo, por trinta dias ou mais, até que o Yotube providêncie a instalação de software, com poder moderador das imagens cuja divulgação foi proibida. Porém, essa é uma decisão de competência da Turma Julgadora e que poderá ser tomada na próxima sessão de conferência de votos dos Desembargadores. Ademais, a decisão definitiva dependerá das respostas técnicas das operadores que foram notificadas.

Let it be noted that the Judiciary does reserve the right to take drastic measures, such as preventive blocking of a URL, for 30 days or more, until YouTube installs software that can filter out the images that have been prohibited. However, this is a decision that only the Judiciary can make, and will be resolved in the next judicial conference, by vote of the judges. Furthermore, the definitive decision will take note of the technical responses of the operators that were notified of their duty to comply with the injunction issued by this Judge.

8. Oficie-se com urgência para que o Juízo transmita a contra-ordem, por sistema rápido de comunicação, de forma a concretizar o desbloqueio do site Yotube, mantida a determinação para que se tomem providências no sentido de bloquear o acesso ao vídeo de filmagens do casal, desde que seja possível, na área técnica, sem que ocorra interdição do site completo.

Let the counterorder be communicated forthwith, through a system of rapid communication, so that the YouTube Web site be unblocked, in such a way that operators remain under judicial order to devise a way to block the video containing the images of the couple [humping on a public beach in Spain], to the extent technically possible, without interdiction of the entire site.

Intimem-se.

Take heed.

São Paulo, 9 de janeiro de 2007.

ÊNIO SANTARELLI ZULIANI

Relator

Revista Consultor Jurídico, 9 de janeiro de 2007

Watch this case.

It is possible that the full court may affirm Telefonica’s right to block a competing content provider out of its market.

But if the decision really does turn on the “no technical means available for blocking single URIs” argument, it is totally upgefupt.

With its ass hanging out for a good legal spanking. Because that is utterly false, and its argument disingenous.

Their creative misreading of the order being that it was the mystical and eternal body of the film, sub specie intellectual proprietatis, not specific copies of it with URIs, that was to be the object of the interdiction.

But even if that were the case, the order Telefonica says it was obeying was fictitious.

These people are scum, if you will permit me a little editorializing on the subject.