The root of the issue is that Alexandre de Moraes, a single justice on the Supreme Court, has been issuing secret orders to censor content, ban accounts, and jail people over political speech. This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries.
Also the “Musk refused” part isn’t accurate. Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_atta...
The same people who wanted to overthrow the government and wanted a coup d'état by the military?
I doubt that the US government would differently in such cases.
And Twitter censored accounts on behalf of Turkey and India for political reasons but in Brasil they act differently, maybe Musk is in favor of Bolsonaro.
And that Linda makes the decisions is questionable at best
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-linda-yaccarino-tw...
It's sort of like the mafia 'suggesting' you make a donation. Or a politician 'suggesting' a donation for expedited service. Which is legal.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/schumer-intelligence-ag...
Their shareholders don't want controversies screwing up their investment, so the management acted accordingly in the company's best interest.
He's obviously known for his hands off "I just allocate capital" attitude towards his businesses.
And Musk didn't fight as hard in India or Turkey for accounts of people that did far less.
There's obviously a bias, I wonder why?
https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-jair-bolsonaro-spacex-s...
Anyways, Alexandre de Moraes - the Supreme Court justice in this situation - is acting unconstitutionally in multiple ways. Issuing orders to censor, ban, or arrest in secret is depriving the victims of due process and the public of accountability. He also said himself that he is not getting his powers from law but from what the other court he sits on gave him as a new power, which is just a made up legal invention on his part. How can a court make up legal powers, when that is meant to come from the constitution and legislation?
> And Musk didn't fight as hard in India or Turkey for accounts of people that did far less.
You are one among many attempting the whataboutism of bringing up Turkey and India, even though it has no bearing on what is happening in Brazil. I don’t agree with censorship in any of these cases. However, Twitter/X has publicly stated that their policy is to comply with local laws in each country. The difference is in the legality of orders per that country’s own laws. In Brazil, there is a right to freedom of expression without censorship, per article 5 of the constitution. Also another difference is that the censorship orders here were done in secret - like with gag orders that make it invisible to the public - and this is both highly unethical but also makes this judge unaccountable and difficult to challenge.
Unless you were already part in an attempt than it's more likely you aren't just express your opinion but coordinate your next attempt over social media.
Free speech has limit. Just look at Charles Manson, he didn't kill anybody but he talked others into.
You wouldn't call Russian orders through Telegram free speech, would you?
The same entity behaves differently on the same issue but from different requester.
By your logic every complain about racism is whataboutism.
"Why got the black man jailed for drug possession but white man got probation?
"Whataboutism!!!"
There are various ways to resolve a conflict; to comply to your opponent's demands just because he happens to hold a high enough office is but one of these ways. Complying to unlawful orders so as to preserve profits is often seen as corruption. Sometimes the best way to resolve a conflict correctly is to take a stand.
Unconstitutional in which country? And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court.
Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff. He obviously lost, because the latter has immediate legal power and X doesn't.
> Unconstitutional in which country?
It is unconstitutional in Brazil, because Article 5 explicitly says there is a right for anyone in the country - citizens and visitors - to freedom of expression without censorship. It actually says the part about censorship, emphasizing its place in the constitution.
> And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court.
The justice in question here, Alexandre de Moraes, sits on the Supreme Court equivalent in Brazil. He’s the one issuing secret orders. He has support of the sitting president, Lula, since these actions are against Lula’s political opposition. The other justices are not free to speak against this practice because the aggressiveness of the current regime creates fear of speaking against them. Also, keep in mind there isn’t a due process to challenge these orders both because they are from a justice in the highest court and because they are done in secret, outside the public’s visibility, as it would normally be in due process. Separate from the free speech concerns, this part is also unconstitutional as you cannot have courts or tribunals outside the normal due process.
> Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff.
Musk is his own person. Twitter/X is not run by Musk, but a different CEO, Linda Yaccarino. The company made these decisions to refuse the secret orders, because Twitter/X’s legal team determined they are illegal under Brazilian law. It’s not about calling anyone’s bluff but appealing to the public as a last means to fight authoritarianism.
The way I see this: the Supreme Court asked X to remove content and accounts that main purpose were to promote hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions; X didn't comply; fines were issued; fines were never paid by X; the justice started using all available legal tools to fulfill the previous mandates (content removal and/or pecuniary penalties).
If you are going to post here, you need to engage in good faith. A five second search could have brought you to numerous articles quoting Lula where he supports Alexandre de Moraes’s actions and criticizes Musk. So yes, the executive and the judiciary are mixed because one is lending support publicly to the other. Those are the FACTS.
> The way I see this: the Supreme Court asked X to remove content and accounts that main purpose were to promote hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions
It doesn’t matter if accounts promote “hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions” (which just sounds like hyperbole for criticizing political processes) - that isn’t sufficient grounds for state enforced censorship in any free and democratic society. If you want to admit that Brazil has turned authoritarian, that’s one thing. But these convoluted narratives are wildly inaccurate and unconvincing.
Right. Everyone can see that.
Seems like the poster understands the law part fine, but not the rule part.
You're guessing wrong.
> It is unconstitutional in Brazil, because Article 5 explicitly says there is a right for anyone in the country - citizens and visitors - to freedom of expression without censorship. It actually says the part about censorship, emphasizing its place in the constitution.
I'm familiar with Article 5 and the rest of the Brazilian Constitution. Yes, freedom of expression but not unlimited freedom. There is no shortage of examples of limits to this right. Here's one arguably lengthy but compelling opinion piece dated from 2021, so prior to this situation and therefore unbiased, which argues that Brazilian Law draws the line at "inciting violence" whether against people or institutions: https://direito.usp.br/noticia/4bdc11296800-os-limites-a-lib...
Importantly the author supports that challenging the government in the form of speech is fine, but not in the form of inciting violence.
> The justice in question here, Alexandre de Moraes, sits on the Supreme Court equivalent in Brazil. He’s the one issuing secret orders. He has support of the sitting president, Lula, since these actions are against Lula’s political opposition. The other justices are not free to speak against this practice because the aggressiveness of the current regime creates fear of speaking against them. Also, keep in mind there isn’t a due process to challenge these orders both because they are from a justice in the highest court and because they are done in secret, outside the public’s visibility, as it would normally be in due process. Separate from the free speech concerns, this part is also unconstitutional as you cannot have courts or tribunals outside the normal due process.
I mean, this is ultimately just a biased political take and does not hold actually hold water under any reasonable interpretation of due process in Brazil. Supreme court judges need not consult with the populace to make legal decisions. Here's the whole decision laying out the facts: https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PET-124...
> Musk is his own person. Twitter/X is not run by Musk, but a different CEO, Linda Yaccarino. The company made these decisions to refuse the secret orders, because Twitter/X’s legal team determined they are illegal under Brazilian law. It’s not about calling anyone’s bluff but appealing to the public as a last means to fight authoritarianism.
Musk owns Twitter and ultimately decides what it does. The CEO doesn't truly have final say, the owner ultimately does. The CEO is an employee of the company. The "fight authoritarianism" saber rattling is tiring and inaccurate. There is no "secret" decision. It's all a matter of public record, as I've linked you to.
As in Brazil constitution? They don't have free speech, but freedom of expression. Read article 5 of the Brazilian constitution.
I - a soberania;
II - a cidadania;
******III - a dignidade da pessoa humana;**** (The dignity of human being being assured)
Then it comes the Art 5:
Art. 5º Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, ''''''à liberdade'''''' (freedom, not only speech), à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes:
IV - é livre a manifestação do pensamento, sendo vedado o anonimato. V - é assegurado o direito de resposta, proporcional ao agravo, além da indenização por dano material, moral ou à imagem; [...]
In none of art 5 parts it says the freedom of thought and of expression is Absolute, on contrary, i let here for you guys translate yourselves the paragraph V... It's not censorship when you comit a crime, you lose your freedom when you comit a crime (depend on the aggravation of course, its penalty dosimetry)
> “IX. expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity is free, independent of any censorship or license”
And note that the introductory text that precedes this reads:
> “Everyone is equal before the law, with no distinction whatsoever, guaranteeing to Brazilians and foreigners residing in the Country the inviolability of the rights to life, liberty, equality, security and property, on the following terms:”
In other words, “communication activity” (which posting on Twitter obviously constitutes) is protected without censorship.
Source: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2014?l...
Which means Freedom (including of Speech) in its very conception is more bounded that the US notion of Free Speech (which, even though also limited, is less restrictive).
However, Free Speech based on the First Amendment only applies to the individual's relations with the State. A private employer in the US can fire an employee for saying something that doesn't reflect the values of the company, even if that speech was lawful. In France (and I assume most Freedom of Speech countries), the constitutional protection applies even with private entities and an employee cannot be fired for a lawful speech. .
But the whole point of freedom of speech is for situations where it does "harm others". If nobody has a problem with your speech, then you don't need laws to protect it. The protection is only useful if speech comes into conflict with someone.
Freedom of speech doesn't stop where somebody else's rights begin, it starts there. There is no need for freedom of speech before that.
Broadly speaking, freedom of speech can mean two roughly orthogonal things:
1. Lack of government censorship.
2. Freedom of speech as an outcome: a society where people can speak their minds without excessive consequences.
Sense 2 is inherently vague and can't be regulated, as people won't agree on when the consequences are excessive. But it's usually what people want when they care about the freedom of speech.
The two senses are sometimes opposed. If you say something other people find unpleasant and a million people decide to ruin your life, it's clearly against freedom of speech in sense 2. But if you have laws against such mob justice, they can easily violate freedom of speech in sense 1.
Freedom of speech in sense 2 is more about culture than government regulations. If you have a highly polarized society, you can't have freedom of speech in that sense.
It's a question of value: either you think Freedom of Speech is the highest form of freedom and right that one can hold, and all the other freedoms must come second, or that all freedom and rights are equal, and the role of the Constitution and the law is to find a balance between those.
Who decides if someone is harmed? Did I really harm someone if I called them a homophobic slur? Can I say that someone harmed me if the mispronounce my name?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369183X.2013.85...
It normally boils down to a <we allow this, except when this>, vs <we allow everything without restrictions>.
There's also wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con...
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater; prior restraint, as is the case for e.g. restricted data under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; copyright...
And who is her boss, again?
Initially, consequences were not that bad (take down of some illegal posts), then they went to removal of recurring offender profiles.X ignored those Supreme Court Justice orders - their only legal course of action being to comply and file an appeal to the Supreme Court as a whole. That led to further escalation against their legal representation in Brazil and their executives (which is according to Brazilian law), which led to Musk shutting down the local representation rather than following the local law. Which put X in a non-compliance state and led to the order for its blocking.
If you understand the initial order to take down posts of defamation and illegal speech as censorship, you comply and appeal. Ignoring a court order is not a legal option.
In Brazil you can go to jail for a slur against a queer person. That is not the case in the U.S.
The question is not about Freedom of Speech, it is about changing the laws on what is protected and illegal speech. I do not like Musk as a person, but what he is doing is an act of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the active, and professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government.
I am wary of the tightening fence around what is protected speech. I am a historian, and the censors never end up being the good guys.
The moment that something is deemed "illegal" to express, there inherently is no more free expression present.
You can have freedom of speech, but there’s no country were it’s absolute. You’re always responsible for consequences of what you say.
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
The general rule is that you have the freedom to do and say whatever you want as long as you don't harm others.
Unrestricted free speech simply does not exist and any free society will have mild censorship, otherwise a lot of terrorists, criminals and fraudsters could defend themselves under free speech.
If there are "election rules" that regulate what can be posted online, that's censorship. Even if people are inciting violence or formenting revolution, banning them is censorship.
Most governments participate in censorship, and most people are OK with some level of censorship. But Brazil's constitution guarantees freedom of speech without censorship, so their courts have no business issuing orders to censor social media.
This is a bad litmus test. Courts order fraudsters to stop doing fraud all the time. It's censorship. But it's acceptable censorship, even in America where we have a uniquely-potent First Amendment.
That can't work in reality though. So at best it can only be a theoretical ideal, merely a guideline for practical legislation. Same way French constitution has equal rights for all citizen baked into its constitution for more than a century.
Each day the popular vocabulary shrinks more and more, until we're back at cave man levels. Tower of Babylon.
False, there was no due process. Twitter/X’s appeals were not even heard by the Supreme Court, which is probably in part because of the inherent conflict of interest given that the illegal secret censorship orders come from a Supreme Court justice. And also, why are you saying “Musk” did not comply - he’s not CEO of Twitter/X, just someone criticizing Alexandre de Moraes and the state of censorship and democracy in Brazil.
> It's not, in the slightest, censorship at all.
Now that some of the secret orders have been published, we see that it is indeed literal censorship as claimed by Twitter/X. De Moraes unilaterally decided that accounts belonging to current elected officials should be deleted in secret. That is literally, completely, censorship.
> The continuous disregard of Brazilian laws meant that Musk, which in addition do not paid the fines, also removed his legal representatives from the country, which is not permitted by our legislation.
Stop being dishonest about the situation. You know full well that Twitter/X removed their legal representative because Alexandre de Moraes threatened them personally, with fines, jail time, and even froze their personal financial assets. That is an incredibly authoritarian action. Twitter/X had to close their office to avoid having their staff similarly persecuted. It is a giant embarrassment to Brazil in the world’s eye but also a gross violation of civil liberties.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If the order is illegal you show that in court. U.S. district courts constantly issue illegal orders. There is a massive difference between appealing for an emergency stay and just blowing off the court. (Musk is a brilliant entrepreneur. He has given zero shits about the rule of law across his career, domestically or abroad.)
At the end of the day, both sides in this case are posturing. The judge gets to act like he's standing up to us American imperialists. Musk gets affirmation from his anti-work censorship crowd. The fact that X f/k/a Twitter has zero employees in Brazil should tell you how much that market really matters to him.
> Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino
This is nonsense. I have a lot of respect for senior people on the X team as well as many of their shareholders. Yaccarino is an obvious puppet.
I fully support Brazil banning X because a country can do whatever they want, but let’s not pretend X owes Brazil anything.
Brazil is irrelevant to X and countries that act like dictators deserve to be ignored by foreign companies. It’s hilarious to see Brazil play their cards and show they have no power over their citizens by threatening to fine them for using a VPN to access X.
This isn’t bias against LATAM, I also want to see Australia lose business due to their crazy spy laws.
Oh, I totally agree with you. But they're not worth negative money. This was a cheap stunt for both sides to pull off. But it's still a stunt. X's TAM has been cut. Brazil's reputation harmed. But both men have personal interests that make those costs worth it, and there isn't anyone in their respective domains who can check them.
Said "freedom of expression" in Brazil is constrained by the following paragraphs, that for example explicitly:
IV - requires anything considered "free speech" to be explicitly non-anonymous.
V - anything considered "free speech" must pay compensation to harmed third parties.
X - "free speech" can't violate the personal privacy and honor of third parties.
XVII - "free speech" doesn't apply to you if you're trying to assemble a paramilitary force.
It is not "free speech" in the "I speak what I want" sense at all. Violation of those rules isn't considered "censorship" because you didn't have the rights (to be anonymous, to harm others, and to assemble juntas) to start with.
You cited term X which says people's intimacy, private life, honor and image are inviolable. Looks like you didn't finish reading it though. Right after those words is written the following:
> the right to be indemnified for the material or moral damage secondary to their violation is guaranteed
It basically says you're entitled to a payday if someone damages your privacy or reputation.
Nowhere does it say that censorship is warranted. The constitution goes out of its way to explicitly mention that censorship is prohibited multiple times and in multiple places.
> The expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication activity is free, independently of censorship or license
> Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited
I know nothing about Brazilian law. But in general, we always create exceptions to free speech when balancing harms. Spam filtering. Fraud. Et cetera.
You certainly can, but it usually takes the form of defying the order and appealing to a higher court for a stay pending trial and then hopefully and eventually a reversal of the order when hopefully it is indeed found to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
This is unconstitutional according to their interpretation of the (very extensive and vague) article 5 of the 1998 constitution, maybe. At the same time, if you disagree with a judicial order, you probably should appeal the order, rather than refuse/ignore it. Ignoring judicial orders has consequences.
> Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”).
It says a lot of things (that can be interpreted in many ways). Note that it also says "é livre a manifestação do pensamento, *sendo vedado o anonimato*". Did Twitter/X refuse to give information about accounts, after having been asked by the Supreme Court? If yes, then it can also be said that they are breaking article 5 of the 1988 constitution.
In general, constitutional laws (in Brazil and elsewhere) tend to be rather vague. The devil is in the details. Just because it says somewhere that "é livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença", doesn't mean that you are free to express your art of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance.
> If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries.
In general, a person (or other legal entity) are not free to pick and choose what laws or judicial orders they want to follow, depending on their own interpretation of the law. Or, I mean... they can... but there are usually consequences to ignoring judicial orders.
Also, it probably is not a great idea to try to intimidate/aggravate/insult/threaten the judge (https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1829005086606901481...) during those legal proceedings. Judges tend to not love that.
If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts (or auto-removes tweets) for using terms Musk dislikes (like "cis" or "cisgender").
I really don't buy the "free speech" argument here, since Twitter has never been an "absolute free speech" space to begin with. Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
In the US first amendment protections only apply to the government. Is that different in Brazil?
Furthermore, there is already a precedent here: both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil until they decided to comply with judicial orders (after which, they were unbanned again). Why does Twitter think they are special in this regard?
If the judicial order is (correctly) justified by an inconstitutional law, then it's that specific law that has to be challenged, not the judicial order.
These are in no way equivalent. e.g. the first amendment only protects you from the government not from private organizations (if anything them deciding to publish or not to publish your content is an expression of freedom of speech and is right that the Supreme Court has confirmed). Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different.
> both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil
That's still unreasonable.
Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order...
Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people and actually might lead to some positive outcomes in some rare cases.
Sure, but we are not discussing the first amendment, or US law in general. As you must be aware, protection of freedom of expression rights are different in different jurisdictions.
> Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different.
I would not be so sure. For example, it is not legal to display a swastika in Germany (even though Germany is usually considered a democratic rule-of-law country), even though it might be legal to do so in the US.
> That's still unreasonable.
Just stating this (without any further argumentation) doesn't make it so. My only point is that, apparently, there is legal precedence for such kinds of things (i.e., banning a certain social network when it refuses to appoint a legal representative in Brazil).
> Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order...
I'm not dodging anything... that is a different issue, that we can further discuss, if you want to have a discussion in good faith. Trying to change subjects without addressing the point I made could be seen as moving goalposts, though.
> Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people [...].
Ad hominem argumentation is not the best approach to argumentation, if you want to be taken seriously and have a discussion in good faith.
I'm not sure what do you mean by that. How is this specific decision, or some of the other examples/laws you've mentioned not authoritarian at least to some extent? It doesn't mean that they are not necessarily or unjustifiable in every single case.
> Trying to change subjects without addressing the point I made
I kept repeating this point in every comment I made. Yet you ignored it from the very beginning. Also it's not a different subject, it's intrinsically related to the decision made to ban Twitter since that's how the judge decided to enforce it.
> without addressing the point I made could be seen as moving goalposts
The point that different countries have different laws? Well that's a fact, not sure how can I address it. However I'm curious where do you draw the line? e.g. the USSR had laws, Russia has laws, Venezuela has laws so does China, Hungary and every other country. They all have vary different attitudes to freedom of speech and a bunch of other matters, do you believe that they are all equally valid, reasonable and legitimate?
I mean that "trying to argue based on (your perception of) the person you are talking to, rather than what is being discussed, is a bad argumentation strategy".
> How is this specific decision, or some of the other examples/laws you've mentioned not authoritarian at least to some extent?
Even if it is (which you surely haven't demonstrated), in what way does that imply that I (or anyone else) feel "appeal towards authoritarianism"? Stick to discussing the subject, instead of discussing the people you are talking to, if you want to be taken seriously.
> It doesn't mean that they are not necessarily or unjustifiable in every single case.
If they are legally, morally and ethically justifiable (at least sometimes), then it's not really "authoritarianism": it's just "rule-of-law".
> I kept repeating this point in every comment I made. Yet you ignored it from the very beginning.
No. The only time you mentioned it (in a response to me) was when I called you out. If you disagree, please post the supposed previous comment you made (in response to me) where you bring up the VPN ban issue.
> Also it's not a different subject, it's intrinsically related to the decision made to ban Twitter since that's how the judge decided to enforce it.
From what I understand, the only thing that was banned was the use of circumvention technologies for the purpose of accessing Twitter (which seems legitimate if his previous ruling is to be effectively enforced). From what I understand, the blanket ban of VPN technologies (which does not seem legitimate to me) has been reversed.
> The point that different countries have different laws? Well that's a fact, not sure how can I address it.
The way to address it is to accept that US laws (and US standards of free speech) do not apply to this case, since it is outside of US jurisdiction. Furthermore, to accept that, if a company wants to operate in a certain country, it kind of has to abide by its laws and regulations (regardless of whether they are legitimate or not).
> However I'm curious where do you draw the line? e.g. the USSR had laws, Russia has laws, Venezuela has laws so does China, Hungary and every other country. They all have vary different attitudes to freedom of speech and a bunch of other matters, do you believe that they are all equally valid, reasonable and legitimate?
Obviously not, but the fact remains: if you want to operate in USSR, Russia, Venezuela, China, Hungary, or wherever, you need to comply with local regulations and laws. Or, of course, you can choose not to, but then it is quite likely that local authorities will do whatever they can to prevent your company from operating in their country.
Musk/Twitter has no problem complying with Turkish and Indian court requests and laws, even when it involves censorship. Yet, it can't seem to do the same when it comes to Brazilian court requests and laws. Strange...
It was a secret order from one justice of the Supreme Court, not an official order or decision from the whole of the Supreme Court. It came with an order to maintain secrecy to avoid public scrutiny, which tells you all you need to know about its legality and ethics. Anyways, X’s appeals were not heard by the same supreme court, and that’s probably in part because the other justices are also intimidated by the aggression and power grab by the authoritarians in the regime - namely de Moraes and Lula himself.
If a government commits atrocities at the highest level in secret, should no one refuse or speak up? Of course not - it’s by airing these out in public that it can even be challenged, if there is corruption or authoritarianism. You don’t have to just blindly comply and accept dictatorships.
> Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
This feels like a distraction not an argument - it’s not relevant what happened in other countries. Also X did challenge censorship in India at least, in a lawsuit after Musk acquired Twitter. They lost the lawsuit in that case, but the main thing is that censorship was legal in other jurisdictions where X complied. It’s illegal in Brazilian law, which is why they aren’t caving to the demands of that one single rogue supreme court justice.
It's relevant, because it shows that Twitter/Musk has no problem engaging in state-mandated censorship, as long as it the mandate comes under the form of a judicial order.
The fact that Twitter/Musk also has no problem engaging in non-state-mandated censorship (e.g., banning of arbitrary words that displease Musk), further reinforces the notion that the refusal has nothing to do with "not wanting to cave to [censorship] demands".
> Also X did challenge censorship in India at least, in a lawsuit after Musk acquired Twitter. They lost the lawsuit in that case, but the main thing is that censorship was legal in other jurisdictions where X complied.
According to article 19 of the Constitution of India (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/), "all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression".
> It’s illegal in Brazilian law, which is why they aren’t caving to the demands of that one single rogue supreme court justice.
According to what? Constitutional law (the same way censorship is also illegal under Indian Constitutional law)?
If the supreme court justice is "rogue", there are specific mechanisms in the Brazilian political system to boot him out of the TSF.
> You don’t have to just blindly comply and accept dictatorships.
Unless the dictatorship changes the constitution (or some other laws) to make censorship legal, right? Otherwise, it's ok, according to your logic, since Musk/Twitter is ok with censorship, as long as (they consider) it is legal.
The court will judge the matter collectively in due time in accordance with Brazilian due process, but judges have the power to decide matters immediately when needed before waiting for the court.
Think of it as someone being sent to jail before their trial when they will be acquitted or imprisoned.
I’ve mentioned the HN guidelines to you before, as this type of aggression is not ideal for this space. I understand you are very invested in this story - many people are, myself included. But this type of comment is not appropriate for Hacker News.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> The court will judge the matter collectively in due time in accordance with Brazilian due process, but judges have the power to decide matters immediately when needed before waiting for the court.
I am not familiar with what you’re claiming here about the matter being judged collectively in due time with Brazilian due process - care to share a source?
I do think though that you aren’t quite responding to the point the GP comment made: First, X has nowhere to appeal to because the Supreme Court has refused to hear their appeals so far, which is something X has stated publicly. And of course, the person issuing these secret censorship orders is a member of the Brazilian Supreme Court, so there is also the conflict of interest. There may be no way to eliminate conflict of interest at this highest level court since other justices may feel intimidated by Alexandre de Moraes’s power, or they may simply be on his side as professional friends.
Also, this isn’t just my opinion. Many articles about Alexandre de Moraes mention the lack of paths for appeal. For example the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world/americas/bolsonaro-...) said:
> Mr. Moraes has jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. He has also ordered social networks to remove thousands of posts and videos with little room for appeal.
Second, the GP comment made the point that the judiciary was functioning as the executive and legislative branches. They are correct about that, since no new legislation was passed to give Alexandre de Moraes this power. He effectively gave himself this power from the electoral court he was president of, by proposing to the court that he be granted these unilateral powers. That happened in 2022, and was flagged by journalists and legal experts as a threat to democracy at the time.
Top article on G1: https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2024/09/01/primeira-tu...
Translated to English via ChatGPT for you: https://pastebin.com/raw/1KNU6Q3F
These aren't "secret censorship orders". They are a matter of public record.
Also they are perfectly legal. Brazil has a modern "Internet Law" which in its Section III, Article 19 states:
"Art. 19. In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, the provider of internet applications can only be subject to civil liability for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after an specific court order, it does not take any steps to, within the framework of their service and within the time stated in the order, make unavailable the content that was identified as being unlawful, unless otherwise provided by law."
https://www.cgi.br/pagina/marco-civil-law-of-the-internet-in...
I assume that the judge in question used a specific criminal or civil law to justify his judicial order. If Twitter believes this law to be unconstitutional, the correct venue for their legal recourse is the Constitutional Court, not the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, until the Constitutional Court decides to hear their challenge and (possibly) revoke the law in question (possibly with retroactive effects), they still have to comply with judicial orders.
From what I understand, the Senate (if they believe the judge in question to be acting outside the law) has the necessary powers to boot the judge from the Supreme Court, if necessary. Twitter doesn't, sorry.
> Nobody is arguing about that, though.
People are arguing based on the supposed protection that the Brazilian constitution reserves for freedom of expression. This protection is not absolute, though (as pointed out by my example).
And constitutional law is not something that is directly applied: it mostly serves as guiding principles for the production of specific civil and criminal laws by the legislative power.
"This judicial order is inconstitutional" is simply a bad argument (from a legal point-of-view); a much more reasonable argument is "this judicial order is justified/based on an unconstitutional law" (but that is not the argument that is being made, as far as I can tell). If the judge is justifying his orders based on an inconstitutional law, then you should challenge the law itself, not the judicial order (if you can't really challenge the judicial order, which seems to be the case).
> Maybe appointing people who behave like schoolchildren to the supreme court is not the best idea then?
You do know that there is a law regulating so-called "deepfakes" in Brazil, right? (https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=929278...)
For someone who claims to be concerned about Brazilian law, Musk sure seems willing to ignore Brazilian laws, whenever it suits him.
Also, maybe it's not just the judge that is acting like a schoolchild, in this context. What do you think is going to happen if you talk back and threaten a judge with being arrested, even in a US court of law? Usually not fun things.
Oh... so now Twatter/Musk is "god-like" and above the law? Judge Dredd?
Why Elon doesn't bring "peace and liberty" to China? Or other nice countries?
It's only for existing customers and because they can't charge them anymore, but don't want to drop the customers just yet. It's a business continuity plan, not some altruistic gesture.
Why is there someone always making this comment every time a company or someone rich does something good for a bunch of people?
There's no such thing as altruism, with humans it's all self-interest, and that's good actually. Might as well point out that the water is wet. So why make this comment?
I made the comment, because parent suggested that starlink did something for the citizens in general. That's not correct. The good they did was incidental to preserving customers until they can start charging again.
And specifically I mentioned that, because the good part gets played up as some kind of freedom stance... but it's not. Even the announcement didn't describe it as such.
Musk could cut off Brazilian Starlink subscribers in the hopes that the backlash would change things in Brazil. But instead he probably thinks keeping those customers on (and happy) for free is the better choice for his business.
I agree with you that altruism exists, but I'm not sure I'm willing to give Musk the benefit of the doubt for many of the decisions he makes.
It doesn't scale though. You end up in a position where you can afford to do something like that if you behave altruistically.
What a goofy assertion.
Yeah, the big concern for Starlink and Musk is maintaining non-paying customers.
It's not altruism either, it's political.
It's the same reason you get offers of discounts or free periods when you try to cancel services from large companies. They care about your worth over years, not just right now.
The whole thing started because X refused to take down posts judged as defamatory against some politicians in Brazil, as well as some profiles accused of consistently posting fake news and borderline illegal content. One can disagree with the ruling and appeal, but ignoring a Supreme Court Justice order is not a legal option, which led to the escalation.
True that no one would want to step in as a legal representative of X in Brazil right now, but that doesn't change the legal requirement - it exists so that the State has the power to enforce law over companies effectively operating in the country. The US is doing something similar (in process, motivations are quite different) by threatening to ban TikTok, for instance.
The Starlink ruling is mostly being considered an overreach by the Justice. It may take some time, but it will likely be withdrawn. Him deciding to keep the service for free, as long as it complies with the law, bears no matter and should be read most likely as a publicity stunt.
So I read that this is all because musk refused to appoint a Brazilian citizen as an X representative, as dictated by Brazilian law. I have not verified this part.
Musk refused because the last person to fill that role had all their bank accounts frozen by the judge.
The judge also cut off payments from Brazilian citizens to starlink, something about relating star link to x. so musk said “well then starlink is free for Brazilian citizens because I don’t want to cut people off from their internet connection.” Or something like that.
Edit: blackeyedblitzar child comment of this has better information.