Social media and the scope of state jurisdiction: analysis from the perspectives of territoriality and effectiveness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53798/suprema.2022.v2.n1.a159Keywords:
Limits of jurisdiction, Territory, Social networksAbstract
The article aims to reveal the relationship between jurisdiction (more specifically, its territorial scope/range) and the conflicts linked to posting abusive or illegal statements on the internet. The main hypothesis of the article is that jurisdiction and decisions rendered by the Judiciary, when directed to remove posts on the internet, have their scope/range limited to the territory of the State in which they are rendered. This means that people who connect to the internet from other States cannot be directly impacted by the decision.
Downloads
References
BERMAN, Paul Schiff. The globalization of jurisdiction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, n. 151, v.2, p. 311-545, Dec. 2002.
DE TERWANGNE, Manon. Le cyberharcèlement: une législation d’hier pour un mal d’aujourd’hui? 2017. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) - Faculté de droit et de criminologie, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2017. Disponível em: https://dial.uclouvain.be/memoire/ucl/object/thesis:10026. Acesso em: 6 maio 2022.
DINAMARCO, Cândido Rangel. A instrumentalidade do processo. 14. ed. rev. e atual. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2009. 400 p.
DINAMARCO, Cândido Rangel. Instituições de direito processual civil. 6. ed. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2009. v.1.
GOLDSMITH, Jack; WU, Tim. Who controls the internet?: illusions of a borderless world. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 226 p.
GONÇALVES, Anabela Susana de Sousa. A revisão do Regulamento Bruxelas I relativo à competência judiciária, ao reconhecimento e à execução de decisões em matéria civil e comercial. In: ESTUDOS em comemoração dos 20 anos da Escola de Direito da Universidade do Minho. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2014. 645 p.
GRECO FILHO, Vicente. Homologação de sentença estrangeira. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1978. 174 p.
JOHNSON, David; POST, David. Law and borders: the rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, n. 48, v. 5, p. 1367-1402, May 1996. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220167130_Law_and_Borders_-_The_rise_of_law_in_Cyberspace. Acesso em: 6 maio 2022.
KATSH, Ethan; RABINOVICH-EINY, Orna. Digital Justice: technology and the internet of disputes. Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press, 2017. 258 p.
KOHL, Uta. Conflict of laws and the internet. In: BROWNSWORD, Roger; SCOTFORD, Eloise; YEUNG, Karen (ed.). The Oxford handbook of law, regulation ad technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 269-296. Disponível em: https://www.academia.edu/31849089/Conflict_of_Laws_and_the_Internet. Acesso em: 6 maio 2022.
LA CHAPELLE, Bertrand de; FEHLINGER, Paul. Jurisdiction on the internet: from legal arms race to transnational cooperation. In: FROSIO, Giancarlo (ed.). Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability. Oxford: University Press, 2020. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.013.38.
LEONARDI, Marcel. Fundamentos de direito digital. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2019. 252 p.
LESSIG, Lawrence. Code. 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books, 2006. 410 p.
LEVI, Lili. The problem of trans-national libel. American Journal of Comparative Law, n. 60, v.2, p. 507-553, Spring 2012. Disponível em: https://academic.oup.com/ajcl/article-abstract/60/2/507/2571377?redirectedFrom=PDF&login=true. Acesso em: 6 maio 2022.
LIEBMAN, Enrico Tullio. Os limites da jurisdição brasileira. In: LIEBMAN, Enrico Tullio. Estudos sobre o processo civil brasileiro. São Paulo: Bestbook, 2001. p. 11-22.
MATTATIA, Fabrice. Internet et les réseaux sociaux: que dit la loi? 3eme éd. Paris: Eyrolles, 2019. 264 p.
POLLICINO, Oreste. Judicial protection of fundamental rights in the transition from the world of atoms to the word of bits: the case of freedom of speech. European Law Journal, v. 25, n. 2, p. 155-168, April 2019. Disponível em: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3371697. Acesso em: 6 maio 2022.
RECONDO, Felipe. Entenda por que há risco de a Justiça banir o Telegram no Brasil: TSE e outros tribunais vêm tentando, em vão, notificar a plataforma. Jota, 18 jan. 2022. Disponível em: https://www.jota.info/opiniao-e-analise/analise/entenda-por-que-ha-risco-de-a-justica-banir-o-telegram-no-brasil-18012022. Acesso em: 20 jan. 2022.
RODRIGUES JUNIOR, Otávio Luiz. Responsabilidade civil e internet: problemas de qualificação e classificação nas redes sociais. In: ANDRIGHI, Fátima Nancy: Responsabilidade civil e inadimplemento no direito brasileiro. São Paulo: Atlas, 2014. p. 299-300.
RUSSELL, Jimi; CIPRIANO, Dena. Using the Moon to address Earth’s digital inequality. NASA, Houston, Oct 5, 2021. Disponível em: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/glenn/2021/using-the-moon-to-address-earth-s-digital-inequality. Acesso em: 20 jan. 2021.
SCHWAB, Klaus. A quarta revolução industrial. São Paulo: Edipro, 2019. 159 p. (Edição Kindle)
STAVELEY-O’CARROL. Sarah. Libel tourism laws: spoiling the holiday and saving the First Amendment? New York University Journal of Law & Liberty. v. 4, p. 252-292, 2009. Disponível em: https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_062709.pdf . Acesso em: 6 maio 2022.
SVANTESSON, Dan Jerker B. Internet jurisdiction and intermediary liability. In: FROSIO, Giancarlo (ed.). Oxford handbook of online intermediary liability. Oxford: University Press, 2020. 800 p.
ZADOROZHNA, Svitlana. Political and moral aspects of guaranteeing the principles of International Law. European Journal of Law and Public Administration, v. 5, n. 1, p. 156-162, 2018. Disponível em: https://lumenpublishing.com/journals/index.php/ejlpa/article/view/882/pdf. Acesso em: 6 maio 2022.
ZEKOLL, Joachim. Comparative civil procedure. In: REIMANN, Mathias; ZIMMERMAN, Reinhard (ed.). The Oxford handbook of Comparative Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: University Press, 2019. 1403 p.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Francisco de Mesquita Laux, Solano de Camargo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
