Brazilian TV Host Gets Court To Demand Google Censor Results Pointing To A Movie She Was Once In

from the right-to-forget? dept

Mon, Nov 15th 2010 10:49am — Mike Masnick

While we were encouraged by a proposal in Brazil that would make it much more difficult to get content taken down without a trial or giving whoever put the content up a chance to respond (and also by a proposal to make fair use equally as important as copyright), to date, Brazilian courts have a tragically bad history of enforcing censorship based on content someone doesn't like. Google, for example, has been on the losing end of lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit in Brazil -- and all of it over third party content.

The latest such example comes from reader Fabop, who notes that Xuxa Meneghel, a well-known host of a Brazilian children's TV show has been able to get the courts to issue an injunction against Google (Google translation of the original Portuguese) because she was upset at the results that came up when people did a search for "Xuxa pedophile."

If you're wondering why people would do such a search -- or why there were Google results on it, apparently, back in 1982, Xuxa Meneghel started in a film, Amor, Estranho Amor (Love, Strange Love) in which she played a pedophile prostitute who seduces an 11-year-old boy. Of course, that's factual information -- but she's upset that when people search on those terms, it returns articles about the movie, and pictures from the movie. This seems somewhat similar to the various attempts to create "right to forget" laws in Europe. Apparently, Meneghel has even been successful in getting the actual movie banned from distribution, even though the company who owns the film rights would like to continue distributing it.

Google is apparently a bit upset that this temporary injunction was issued without anyone bothering to inform Google (Google translation from the original Portuguese, and it sounds like the company will try to fight the injunction.

The company points out -- accurately -- that it's merely indexing the content that's out there, and is not responsible for it. However, Xuxa's lawyer mocks them for this claim, saying that Google can and should block such content, and that the court system in Brazil is "tired" of deciding whether or not search engines are responsible for the content to which they link.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: brazil, links, search engines, takedowns, xuxa meneghel
Companies: google

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 10:57am

Dear Brazil:
No more Google anything for you!
-Luv, everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2010 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re: Dear Brazil:
  This would be the simplest solution.
  Though they they would have to go after each other search engine one at a time.
  Maybe the better solution would be just cut them off from the Internet.
  That way they wouldn't have to worry about what's out their.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:11am

Was she not aware of what the film was about when she APPEARED IN IT?

Screw 'right to forget'. There should be 'forced to make peace with stupid things you've done'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:21am

Tired
I am also tired of the court system "deciding whether or not search engines are responsible for the content to which they link". You would think by now any lawsuit that asserts this ridiculous claim would be quickly laughed out of court. Sadly this is not yet the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 16 Nov 2010 @ 5:05am
  
  Re: Tired
  Breaking News ...
  Binocular manufacturers now responsible for what is viewed through their optics.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pringerX (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:24am

It's the lawyers
They just want of the piece of the pie that Google baked. It might be interesting to watch Brazil fall flat on its face if Google just shut down services there for a few days, but sadly that won't happen.

"Right to forget" is not unreasonable, if it being applied to private information made public without the consent of the person in question-like medical records. But I suspect most of the information people want quashed is public anyway, so a proper "right to forget" law that obeys freedom of speech would be moot in many, if not most cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roberta Fernandes, 15 Nov 2010 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re: It's the lawyers
  Do you think us brazilian agree with what those lawyers are doing? this woman had a problem with internet before (twitter, precisely), so is about one person's issue, and not the whole population.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Ring (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:28am

or why there were Google results on it

?? Google will return results for practically anything. I doubt there's any combination of [name] + "pedophile" that would return 0 results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:30am

I know that movie.
Got no idea what it's about, but she's good looking.

She's an actress that plays a pedophile in that movie. How is that not an accurate search? The results aren't claiming she is a pedophile, just that she played one in a movie once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert Ring (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: I know that movie.
  Not to mention, anyone performing that specific search probably already knows about the movie. Otherwise, why would they randomly Google that.
  
  And if they Googled it because they randomly heard her name coupled with "pedophile" somewhere and wanted to learn more about it, she would only be absolved, as the person searching for the terms would learn, "Oh, that's just from a movie."
  
  Ah, if only people gave these things some thought before suing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re: I know that movie.
    That's a damn good point, she blocks this search all that will come up is questioning if she is actually a pedophile. No more absolution.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re: I know that movie.
    She is probably scared of the stupid witchhunters who don't know the difference between movies and real life (or between paedophiles and paediatricians)
    
    Incidentally the words should be spelled "Paed.." a pedophile is actually a foot fetishist...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 3:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I know that movie.
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophilia?show=0&t=1289864123
      
      http://www.merriam-w ebster.com/dictionary/pedophile
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: I know that movie.
  On that basis Christopher Lee is a Vampire, Johnny Depp is a drunken pirate and Arnold Schwarzenegger is a killer robot from the future - why don't they sue Google?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re: I know that movie.
    "...why don't they sue Google?"
    Vampires, pirates, and killer future robots have no real need of extra money or publicity...
    
    ; P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I know that movie.
      Oh I don't know - I'm sure Dracula would like his castle re-furbished..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - that_id (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re: I know that movie.
    maybe if it instead portrayed her as a killer robo-pedophile from the future, she wouldn't have had a problem with it...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another AC, 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:38am

Just for Grins
I just searched thru Bing and found what i am sure are similar results to Google. Are they going to systematically go after every search engine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:44am
  
  Re: Just for Grins
  I just searched thru Bing and found what i am sure are similar results to Google.
  
  Wow - Bing has improved then...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Berenerd (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 1:19pm
    
    Re: Re: Just for Grins
    What they do is...behind the scenes...they do a search on google...then change the order a little and reports it...BRILLIANT!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dishevel, 15 Nov 2010 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Just for Grins
    No. They just re display the Google results with a couple of random links to Microsoft products.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2010 @ 11:46am

Process number
Going from the information on the first link and searching on the tribunal's web site, it looks like it is this one: 0024717-80.2010.8.19.0209 (http://srv85.tjrj.jus.br/consultaProcessoWebV2/consultaProc.do?numProcesso=2010.209.024422-0).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that_id (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 12:06pm

court system in Brazil is "tired"
and that the court system in Brazil is "tired" of deciding whether or not search engines are responsible for the content to which they link.
===========================

I'm pretty certain that Brazil's 'tired' court system will have dug it's own grave with these decisions.
Since the precedent has now been set, I can only imagine these types of claims will begin to overwhelm the courts very quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trilobug, 15 Nov 2010 @ 12:21pm

Xuxa that rings a bell...
I remember Xuxa (pronounced shoo-sha). It was a kids game show that actually aired in the states in the early 90s. My friend and his brother were actually contestants one show. Xuxa was kinda cute, and I dug the accent, though her toy soldier dances were always hotter than her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 15 Nov 2010 @ 1:05pm

I expect not everyone can understand the design of the internet, but you'd think a judge would take the time to investigate. Google generated the index, but did not write the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 1:44pm

And, of course, if you google Xuxa pedophile now the second top result is a link to Techdirt critizicing Brasil for this move.

Can we call this the Xuxa Effect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kstahmer (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 2:01pm

Bye Bye Brazil
Brazil, if your goal is to make yourself irrelevant and appear ridiculous, you succeeded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interval (profile), 15 Nov 2010 @ 2:07pm

"Block" content?
All google can do is not index the information, it would be up to individual isps to actually "block" the site hosting it. I hope these Brazilian courts understand that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul`, 15 Nov 2010 @ 4:19pm

If I were google I'd ask them to phrase their question so it makes sense with the relevant technology. Google can't block shit but it could delete it from its index...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pantagruella, 15 Nov 2010 @ 4:24pm

Xuxa
I don't think anyone in their right minds would time in a word, a well-known word, that means a fondness for children. The only people who would do that are investigators or monkeys working on a Shakespearean play. I think the laws of the world should agree with anything Xuxa wants. I would imagine Xuxa has profound contempt for children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2010 @ 10:16pm

I give it 2 weeks till google has Brazil invaded due to a 'mistake'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2010 @ 12:50am

Hope she doesn't use the "Brazilian Blowout" :)

Will Brazilian Blowout try to censor the net next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2010 @ 8:34am

She didn't just play a pedophile in the film; she actually had explicit softcore nude love scene with the child actor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re:
  Its true. I think the film would officially be kiddy porn in the USA or other countries.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 11 Mar 2017 @ 12:05am
  
  Re:
  Exactly and it's interesting that she not only made a movie like that but went on to devote her career to child related things (hosting children's shows singing songs that are popular with kids etc), she's been criticized by people for catering to pedophiles with her shows by dressing the girls provocatively and sexualizing children. The fact that she has such an obsession with children making glorified soft core porn with a 12 year old boy becoming a children's tv show host and dressing kids like adults having them dance in a sexual way makes me think she is a pedophile, her going out of her way to scrub evidence of that movie from existence first going to court and banning the film from being distributed and now trying to stop Google searches about her being a pedophile just makes her look guilty. And there were other women who played pedophiles in that movie the boy's mother in the movie molested him twice in the exact same way that this woman's character did and the boy had a fantasy in which every woman in the movie did an orgy scene with him they were all completely naked making out with him and fondling him while he groped them, yet none of the other actresses tried to stop people from seeing the movie because they don't have anything to hide it was just acting (even if straddling the line on what's legal and appropriate) and they don't seem fixated on working with children like this woman does so they're not afraid of having pedophile next to their names in searches because there aren't other questionable things in their career involving children the way there is with her.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 11 Mar 2017 @ 12:05am
  
  Re:
  Exactly and it's interesting that she not only made a movie like that but went on to devote her career to child related things (hosting children's shows singing songs that are popular with kids etc), she's been criticized by people for catering to pedophiles with her shows by dressing the girls provocatively and sexualizing children. The fact that she has such an obsession with children making glorified soft core porn with a 12 year old boy becoming a children's tv show host and dressing kids like adults having them dance in a sexual way makes me think she is a pedophile, her going out of her way to scrub evidence of that movie from existence first going to court and banning the film from being distributed and now trying to stop Google searches about her being a pedophile just makes her look guilty. And there were other women who played pedophiles in that movie the boy's mother in the movie molested him twice in the exact same way that this woman's character did and the boy had a fantasy in which every woman in the movie did an orgy scene with him they were all completely naked making out with him and fondling him while he groped them, yet none of the other actresses tried to stop people from seeing the movie because they don't have anything to hide it was just acting (even if straddling the line on what's legal and appropriate) and they don't seem fixated on working with children like this woman does so they're not afraid of having pedophile next to their names in searches because there aren't other questionable things in their career involving children the way there is with her.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]