X says it is closing operations in Brazil due to judge's content orders

Re:X says it is closing operations in Brazil due to judge's ... by datahack on Sunday August 18, 2024 @06:38AM (#41281509)

The idea that another judge or an independent judicial body should intervene if a judge is overstepping is consistent with how a system of checks and balances should function in a Democracy and I think you are largely correct.

However, whether the judiciary in Brazil is actually overstepping or properly fulfilling its role is a matter of interpretation and context.

The broader and very much core question is whether the actions taken by the judiciary, such as censoring social media or jailing individuals without trial, are justified under the circumstances or if they themselves undermine democratic principles. This is the same basic issue I made my other comment about in your series of replies.

This is a nuanced issue that can be debated from different perspectives and much more of a subjective question, and it’s important to separate the issues.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:X says it is closing operations in Brazil due to judge's ... by lobocinza on Sunday August 18, 2024 @01:38PM (#41283831)

What are the nuances of "jailing individuals without trial"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:X says it is closing operations in Brazil due to judge's ... by eecc on Sunday August 18, 2024 @01:52PM (#41283950)

Thanks for explaining the distinction. In Italy we’ve had the same kind of polemic for 20 years from Berlusconi’s Right, claiming — whether preposterously or not is itself debatable, and fanned by Berlusconi’s media — that the Judiciary was corrupt, captured by the “CUmmunishti”, and the haters.

It’s interesting how it’s all playing out again.

[ Parent | on HN ]