Hate Speech and Online Insults: How to Hold Both the Author and the Platform Accountable

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

Insults posted on the internet rarely come with a signature, but the attacker’s anonymity is almost always only apparent. Brazilian law offers a technical and legal path to identify who is behind a fake profile, demand removal of the material, and seek compensation for the harm to your honor. Success depends on gathering evidence before it disappears and on taking the right steps in the right order.

From Apparent Anonymity to Identifying the Author

Every online post leaves a trail. The application provider, such as a social network or a hosting site, records the IP address used when the account was created and for each post. The connection provider, in turn, links that address to a subscriber’s contract at a specific date and time. Putting those two records together makes it possible to reach the individual or company responsible for the offensive account.

It helps to tell the two types of provider apart. The connection provider is the carrier that supplies internet access and knows who the subscriber is. The application provider is the service reached through the network, and it records what the user does inside the platform. Effective accountability usually requires coordinated action against both, because neither one alone holds all the information needed to reveal the author.

Brazil’s Marco Civil da Internet (the Internet Civil Framework) requires connection providers to keep records for one year and application providers to keep access records for six months. These deadlines are short, and they run against the victim. That is why the first strategic step is to preserve the evidence, before any discussion of the merits of the offense.

Obtaining this data requires a court order. The interested party files a petition asking the provider to hand over the access records tied to the web address or the offensive profile. Once you have the IP number, a new request goes to the telecommunications carrier to reveal the identity of the account holder. Only then does the offender stop being anonymous and become an identified defendant.

Removing the Content and the Provider’s Liability

Taking the content down is an urgent matter in its own right, and it does not have to wait for the author to be identified. The victim may ask the application provider directly to remove the material and, if it refuses or delays, ask the court for an urgent injunction (tutela de urgência) ordering immediate deletion, with a daily fine for noncompliance. Speed limits the reach of the harm and prevents further sharing.

The liability of the platform that hosts the content has changed significantly. For years, the rule was that a provider could be held civilly liable only if it failed to comply with a specific court order for removal. The Supremo Tribunal Federal (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) revisited that position and broadened the situations in which a platform is liable, allowing liability to arise from an extrajudicial notice, especially for manifestly unlawful content that is not taken down within a reasonable time.

For the attorney, this change has a direct practical effect. Documenting that the notice was sent, the date it was received, and the platform’s inaction builds the proof that the provider contributed to prolonging the harm by keeping the material online. Each day of inaction becomes part of the story told in the petition and supports a claim for damages against the intermediary as well, not only against the direct author.

Slander, defamation, and insult can be investigated in parallel, and the existence of a criminal case strengthens the claim for damages.

Compensation for Harm to Honor

Once the author is identified and the content preserved, the path to compensation opens. An offense that strikes objective honor, meaning reputation in the eyes of others, or subjective honor, meaning the victim’s self-esteem, gives rise to compensable moral damages. Online, the extent of the harm is usually made worse by the reach of the posts, the ease of sharing, and the way material can remain in search engines indefinitely.

The amount of compensation takes into account the seriousness of the offense, its social impact, the economic circumstances of the parties, and the educational purpose of the award. Dated records, web addresses, view counts, and the length of time the content stayed online are concrete elements that measure the harm and support a solid claim, defeating any argument that the victim suffered no more than mere annoyance.

Besides moral damages, the victim may seek compensation for material damages whenever the offense causes concrete economic loss, such as lost clients, terminated contracts, or a drop in revenue for a professional who has been publicly targeted. In these cases, proof requires documents that connect the post to the loss, such as dated cancellations, messages from third parties, and financial reports. Combining both claims, moral and material, in the same lawsuit increases the compensation and reinforces the true scale of the harm suffered.

Civil and criminal proceedings can run side by side. Slander, defamation, and insult can be investigated in parallel, and the existence of a criminal case strengthens the claim for damages. Whether to sue only the author, only the platform, or both is a strategic decision. It depends on the defendants’ ability to pay and on how strong the evidence is that the intermediary failed to take the content down.

A Strategic Roadmap for the Professional

The order of the steps determines the outcome. We recommend working on three fronts, in this order: preserve the evidence, remove the content, and identify the responsible party. A notarial record (ata notarial) drawn up at a notary’s office gives the offensive material public-record authority and prevents later deletion from erasing the evidence itself, a common problem when victims take everything down before documenting it.

Next, an advance evidence proceeding or an incidental request for production of the records makes it possible to unseal the connection data. With these elements gathered, the damages lawsuit brings together the claims for compensation and, where appropriate, for permanent removal and for an order to refrain from new posts under penalty of a fine, ending the cycle of exposure in a single, well-prepared case.

Time is the main adversary. Records expire, profiles are deleted, and content easily migrates to new addresses. A professional who knows the providers’ retention periods and the right order of steps can turn a case that seems to have no known author into concrete, measurable accountability, with an identified defendant, a co-liable platform, and properly quantified damages.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you find out who is behind a fake profile?

Yes. The application provider keeps the IP address used for posts and registration, and the connection provider links that address to the contract holder. With a court order directed to both, you can reach the identity of the responsible person, even if the profile uses a fictitious name or apparently false information.

Do I need to identify the author before asking for the content to be removed?

No. Removal is an independent and urgent measure. The victim may ask the platform directly to delete the content and, if it refuses, obtain an urgent injunction for immediate removal, regardless of whether the victim already knows who posted the offense. Identification and removal run on parallel tracks, and neither has to wait for the other.

How long do I have to act before the evidence disappears?

Connection providers keep records for one year, and application providers for six months. Because these deadlines run out quickly, the best approach is to preserve the content through a notarial record and request the data as soon as possible, so that the digital trail is not lost and the identification of the responsible party does not become impossible.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.