 {"id":4555,"date":"2026-05-07T02:05:58","date_gmt":"2026-05-07T02:05:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/?p=4555"},"modified":"2026-05-07T02:05:59","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T02:05:59","slug":"adjudicating-fake-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/2026\/05\/07\/adjudicating-fake-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Adjudicating Fake News"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>On July 30, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump imposed 50% tariffs on imports from Brazil and sanctioned a sitting Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, both partially because of Brazil\u2019s online content moderation decisions. This is an extreme, but not an isolated event: worldwide, legislators and regulators struggle to craft public policies that address problems of disinformation and online harassment while protecting the freedom of expression\u2014leading to increasing international confrontations. One key question in content moderation is content adjudication\u2014or who is responsible for deciding what type of speech violates the law and should be taken down (or not). This article contributes to this debate by presenting the results of a six-year, large empirical and qualitative project on the adjudication of fake news disputes by Brazilian Courts from 2018 onwards. It examines what led Brazilian judges to order<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On July 30, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump imposed 50% tariffs on imports from Brazil and sanctioned a sitting Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, both partially because of Brazil\u2019s online content moderation decisions. This is an extreme, but not an isolated event: worldwide, legislators and regulators struggle to craft public policies that address problems of disinformation&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,14,467],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles-2","category-current-issue","category-volume-58-issue-3"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4555","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/58"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4555"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4555\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4558,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4555\/revisions\/4558"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}