throwadobe
You'd think so, but I guess they don't.
But even if I did, why can't I? It's fine to call some music shit. Just like you can call my opinion shit.
Policing dissenting opinions and saying everything is equally worthy of praise are two sides of the same coin sliding in the vending machine that sells us the sad state of affairs we live in today.
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'd rather make my own choices, thank you very much.
I have no political side, I don't even live in Brazil. I don't care if the country blows up. But as a matter of principle I do care that 1st amendment cowboys from abroad speak out of line about legal matters they don't understand and can't be arsed to research, and in doing so contribute to inciting violence against people and institutions because they're sad Bozonaro didn't win his reelection bid despite how obvious that outcome was in advance given his catastrophic term.
Posting a twitter pic isn't the same as reading the actual decision from the judge. I've seen both. Have you?
Wrong. This isn't censorship, bro. It's the final repercussion following repeated attempts by Musk/X to ignore demands from the Brazilian legal system which were made in accordance with Brazilian law as written by congresspeople duly elected by the Brazilian people.
> forced censorship of elected officials, claims of protecting national interests, claiming a lack of local representatives (which obviously Brazil doesn’t require of millions of websites).
This is inaccurate again. The judge didn't say "put a local representative here or we close you down". The judge said "you must comply with this order" and Musk said "lol no, we won't" and the judge said "if you want to appeal you must have a legal representative" and Musk said "lol no" and then he got shut down.
> Brazil has a constitutional guarantee to free speech without censorship, so it is more unexpected.
Note X isn't being banned for allowing free speech. It's being banned for repeatedly disrespecting the law. Musk can say he hates the judges guts all he wants! All Brazilians can! But it must not allow its users to incite violence against people or institutions, which _is against the law in Brazil_
> So I’m not sure what you’re even defending here.
I'm defending the rule of law while you keep sinking into the QAnon bias projecting hurr durr my freedoms into other countries when you don't really know what you're yapping about
Making the extraordinary claim that a Supreme Court judge doesn't have the power to make some decision they've made requires extraordinary evidence. How do you plan substantiate that claim? Where in the Brazilian Constitution or in any of its laws do you see something that supports that view?
Arguing that this is a political move doesn't even make sense. How does banning X help Lula?
You're just buying into the vitriolic, malicious, bot-fed rhetoric that anything that happens is the fault of the "deep state" embedded in PT which is actually just a lazy translation from the MAGA playbook which makes no sense in the US and makes even less sense in Brazil. Stop it, get some help. You're hurting both countries.
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.
How exactly was the judge's decision here not in accordance with the law?
I'm "not a part of the government base" and I happen to think this decision was lawful. Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is doing so for political reasons. It would be too shallow to do so.
The judge doesn't care about the morality of his decision. He shouldn't care. He is there to decide what's lawful and unlawful based on the facts and on the law.
Executives are solving for their job, not for the company's success.
Go read the decision: https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PET-124...
More generally, one doesn't get to say "No, judge, I won't comply with your decision" without repercussions.
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.