Brazil top court threatens to suspend X within 24 hours(apnews.com)
apnews.com
Brazil top court threatens to suspend X within 24 hours
https://apnews.com/article/brazil-top-court-elon-musk-de-moraes-028f7a9f65e3bf355518bbe9d1fbe564
161 comments
If you had ended that with "Twitter" (or "X"), rather than "Brazilian Supreme Court", the comment would have read just as credibly.
Having content on their site that you might not like isn't really comparable. It is sensible to be suspicious of Musk perhaps, but the current hatred of him is as disconcerting as the former glorification.
I think one could expect a bit of self-reflection to not have states shut down online spaces. And that is true for those that I do not personally like as well.
I think one could expect a bit of self-reflection to not have states shut down online spaces. And that is true for those that I do not personally like as well.
So what crime did X commit to? Or it refused to censor your opponent and made you angry?
Presumably refusing to censor things that the government there wanted censored? AIUI most of the rest of the world doesn't have our legal prohibitions against the government doing that.
No need to presume: you can read the article. "dissemination of defamatory fake news and another probe over possible obstruction, incitement and criminal organization."
Which is fair enough, I think.
Which is fair enough, I think.
Anyone who accuses X of hosting disinformation and fake news will 100% win in court. It’s at least 75%of the content I see when I dare to go to the “for you” algo feed.
"Disinformation and fake news" should not be crimes that anyone gets taken to court for to begin with.
Some blanket statements how X are bad is fair enough?
To be frank, this censorship and threats of censorship is much scarier than whatever X are doing.
To be frank, this censorship and threats of censorship is much scarier than whatever X are doing.
Obviously there's a lot more detail in all the prosecutions and investigations. Most, or all of it, should be publicly available if you really care to understand the problem.
Laws have been broken, and this is the justice system's reaction to that. This is not censorship. Brazil (and most of the world) don't subscribe to the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of press are unbound.
Laws have been broken, and this is the justice system's reaction to that. This is not censorship. Brazil (and most of the world) don't subscribe to the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of press are unbound.
This is censorship. Just because it's being done within a legal framework doesn't mean it's not censorship. The Brazilian people will have to decide whether they want their judiciary to have such excessive control over freedom of expression.
The rest of the world should subscribe to the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of expression are (nearly) unbound. The USA is the only major country which gets this right.
The rest of the world should subscribe to the idea that freedom of expression and freedom of expression are (nearly) unbound. The USA is the only major country which gets this right.
> This is censorship.
No, it's not.
> The Brazilian people will have to decide whether they want their judiciary to have such excessive control over freedom of expression.
This is a very loaded comment, full of personal opinions. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it's factual truth.
In any case, we have. At least within the limits of our USA-inspired representative democracy. Federal law goes through 3 houses of elected representatives: the National Congress, the Senate and the Union Executive.
The Constitution goes through even more scrutiny.
> The rest of the world should
More personal opinions. Which, again, is fine. But it's not factual truth.
> The USA is the only major country which gets this right
I think this says it all. We have very little common basis for discussion. I would say the USA is the main major country that gets the _most_ things wrong.
No, it's not.
> The Brazilian people will have to decide whether they want their judiciary to have such excessive control over freedom of expression.
This is a very loaded comment, full of personal opinions. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it's factual truth.
In any case, we have. At least within the limits of our USA-inspired representative democracy. Federal law goes through 3 houses of elected representatives: the National Congress, the Senate and the Union Executive.
The Constitution goes through even more scrutiny.
> The rest of the world should
More personal opinions. Which, again, is fine. But it's not factual truth.
> The USA is the only major country which gets this right
I think this says it all. We have very little common basis for discussion. I would say the USA is the main major country that gets the _most_ things wrong.
You appear to be confused about the definition of censorship.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
When any party, either government or private, blocks free expression then that is literally censorship. It might be legally or morally justified in some circumstances, but it is still censorship.
Words mean things. You don't get to redefine words to support your argument.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship
When any party, either government or private, blocks free expression then that is literally censorship. It might be legally or morally justified in some circumstances, but it is still censorship.
Words mean things. You don't get to redefine words to support your argument.
Sure but you'd also have to define free expression.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act [0] says:
> 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
[0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1
What's being done in Brazil falls within that definition and, as such, is not censorship.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act [0] says:
> 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
[0] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1
What's being done in Brazil falls within that definition and, as such, is not censorship.
I will charitably assume that you aren't a native English speaker and are honestly confused about the nuances of the language rather than trying to derail the discussion with incorrect and irrelevant semantic arguments. Just because a particular act of censorship might be legal within a certain framework doesn't mean it isn't censorship.
Although I can't imagine why you would cite a UK law in a discussion about censorship in Brazil. It's sad how the UK has been growing ever more authoritarian and totalitarian, but that's an entirely separate discussion.
Although I can't imagine why you would cite a UK law in a discussion about censorship in Brazil. It's sad how the UK has been growing ever more authoritarian and totalitarian, but that's an entirely separate discussion.
>I would say the USA is the main major country that gets the _most_ things wrong.
I would like to hear you expound on this.
I would like to hear you expound on this.
Normally, I would - happily. I am sorry though, but I don't have the time right now. If and when I do, I will come back to this.
Fair enough
And yet big companies bow to countries such as China under the ‘it’s all just business’ mantra. Brazil isn’t China but they’re not some small islands either, they can challenge SV and that is a good thing.
X-Twitter doesn't refuse to censor opponents though, eg:
Twitter blocked 122 accounts in India at the government’s request https://restofworld.org/2023/twitter-blocked-access-punjab-a...
Elon Musk caved to government pressure to censor tweets ahead of the Turkish election. https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-censorship-elon-...
Twitter blocked 122 accounts in India at the government’s request https://restofworld.org/2023/twitter-blocked-access-punjab-a...
Elon Musk caved to government pressure to censor tweets ahead of the Turkish election. https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-censorship-elon-...
I don’t think he has a personal squabble with the Indian government though which is what is going on between him, twitter, and brazil’s government.
They didn't fight last one doesn't imply what they are fighting this time is not justified.
Twitter’s argument, which they’re trying to make in Brazil through the justice system, is that the orders to censor (by one Supreme Court justice) aren’t constitutional under Brazilian law. In those other cases, Twitter abided by local law as they claimed they would.
Sure, an argument that may or may not have merit.
The greater point to my comment is that they have a track record of siding with the Mohdi's, Bolsonaro's, Erdoğan's et al when it comes to blocking accounts and otherwise standing on principal as "free speech absolutists" when they like the disinfomation being spread.
That's just the new face of X-Twitter.
The greater point to my comment is that they have a track record of siding with the Mohdi's, Bolsonaro's, Erdoğan's et al when it comes to blocking accounts and otherwise standing on principal as "free speech absolutists" when they like the disinfomation being spread.
That's just the new face of X-Twitter.
So be specific: Which disinformation in your opinion should have been censored at which government's request and wasn't?
As much as possible keep opinion seperate from observation.
Do you have any factual observations to add about censorship by Twitter 2.0?
Do you have any factual observations to add about censorship by Twitter 2.0?
So your response to me is a question for the very thing that I asked you for, this is very bad discussion form when you throw such serious accusations around. Merely giving examples of Erdogan or Modi is obviously not good enough because Musk says that he follows local national laws. So according to that personal rule, all his behavior is consistent. You said that he breaks his own rules, so where does it happen? Are you assuming that disobeying the Brazil order is such a case? Then you have to say so and show why Elon's reason for doing so is wrong because yes, he has given reasons for that. I personally don't know them, I don't care about every single case that affects Twitter. I do care about the social media circus arriving at HN where people think that they can just throw these easy accusations and then not even bother actually touching on the core issue.
Can't read the news just the headline? Maybe that's the crime!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394
But I guess the rules play differently when you are a billionaire, so here we are.
But I guess the rules play differently when you are a billionaire, so here we are.
So you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like?
I don’t know ask Elon, he has been pretty consistently censoring the left. Just last week he blocked the “whitedudesforkamala” account. Is that not censorship?
It's not about liking or not - it's about breaking the law. Hate speech is qualified in Brazilian criminal law. Nazism and anti-democratic aggitation are crimes, for instance.
In some parts of the world, the local governments have decreed that it is.
In a lot of places? Yeah. Like super illegal (felony level)
https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/united-nations-and-hate-sp...
> While certain restrictions on freedom of expression may be motivated by principles of equality and non-discrimination, “direct and public incitement to genocide” and “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” are strictly prohibited under international law, and are considered the “severest forms of hate speech”.
> While certain restrictions on freedom of expression may be motivated by principles of equality and non-discrimination, “direct and public incitement to genocide” and “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” are strictly prohibited under international law, and are considered the “severest forms of hate speech”.
There’s no legitimate definition of hate speech. It’s just an ever expansive label used to undermine political speech and justify censorship or criminal charges. Free speech is the most fundamental civil liberty.
Also no one cares what the UN’s “international law” is. They just all support it or ignore it as convenient, because it means nothing.
Also no one cares what the UN’s “international law” is. They just all support it or ignore it as convenient, because it means nothing.
It's a dispute between Brazil supreme court and a US based company. I didn't want to refer to Brazilian law because it seemed circumstantial, nor could I refer to US law because the first amendment defeats it. Falling back to international law only seemed natural so I didn't think I should have explained my rationale.
But that was only to say, responding to who asked me the original question, that it doesn't matter what I think. I'm not a legislator. What matters is what's enforceable.
But that was only to say, responding to who asked me the original question, that it doesn't matter what I think. I'm not a legislator. What matters is what's enforceable.
There's no such thing as international law. It's an imaginary concept. The UN is not a legislative body or sovereign entity.
Isn't all law* outside of natural laws essentially an agreed upon framework of convenience? Sovereignty itself only works in consensus (see the failures of the sovereign citizen movement in the US).
*I'm deliberately side-stepping religious law because there's no way to reasonably debate it logically. So this is meant to read "all secular law"
*I'm deliberately side-stepping religious law because there's no way to reasonably debate it logically. So this is meant to read "all secular law"
It's all tangential to the point.
> So you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like?
That was the original question which was clearly designed to trap me in an opinion pitfall. I was making sure I was referencing external sources when responding to that, but nobody seemed willing to take what I wrote in context.
> So you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like?
That was the original question which was clearly designed to trap me in an opinion pitfall. I was making sure I was referencing external sources when responding to that, but nobody seemed willing to take what I wrote in context.
You’re right, I wasn’t making any comment on your point.
> However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality.
Source: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...
Source: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...
> "Do you see a rise of hate speech?" Mr Musk said. "I don't."
> He asked our reporter James Clayton for specific examples of hateful content.
> When he couldn't pinpoint individual messages, Mr Musk said: "You don't know what you're talking about… you just lied.
That is hilarious, thanks for the article.
And I don't see examples of crimes committed by X or Musk in there?
> He asked our reporter James Clayton for specific examples of hateful content.
> When he couldn't pinpoint individual messages, Mr Musk said: "You don't know what you're talking about… you just lied.
That is hilarious, thanks for the article.
And I don't see examples of crimes committed by X or Musk in there?
Ah, the ever popular "hey, can you re-create Einstein's theory of relativity for me right now? No? I guess physics must be fake, then" argument, popular with bad-faith conversationalists of all stripes.
Links from the BBC article you appear to have missed: "Antisemitism on Twitter Before and After Elon Musk’s Acquisition"[1] "The Musk Bump: Quantifying the rise in hate speech under Elon Musk"[2]
Additional studies: "Hate Speech Spikes on Twitter After Elon Musk Acquires the Platform" [3] "Auditing Elon Musk’s Impact on Hate Speech and Bots" [4]
1. https://beamdisinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Antisemit...
2. https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-r...
3. https://www.montclair.edu/school-of-communication-and-media/...
4. http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129
Links from the BBC article you appear to have missed: "Antisemitism on Twitter Before and After Elon Musk’s Acquisition"[1] "The Musk Bump: Quantifying the rise in hate speech under Elon Musk"[2]
Additional studies: "Hate Speech Spikes on Twitter After Elon Musk Acquires the Platform" [3] "Auditing Elon Musk’s Impact on Hate Speech and Bots" [4]
1. https://beamdisinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Antisemit...
2. https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-r...
3. https://www.montclair.edu/school-of-communication-and-media/...
4. http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129
Again, where are the alleged crimes committed by Musk according to the GP comment?
> But there are both in-depth studies and anecdotal evidence that suggest hate speech has been growing under Mr Musk's tenure.
> Several fringe characters that were banned under the previous management have been reinstated.
> They include Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website, and Liz Crokin, one of the biggest propagators of the QAnon conspiracy theory.
From that same hilarious article.
> Several fringe characters that were banned under the previous management have been reinstated.
> They include Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website, and Liz Crokin, one of the biggest propagators of the QAnon conspiracy theory.
From that same hilarious article.
I mean... Brazil's a sovereign country, so whatever crime Brazil decides they did?
The law's about power, not rationality.
The law's about power, not rationality.
No, it selectively censors my side and lets my “opponent” off scott free.
:shrug: I don't use X, so I don't get caught up in it. I am just making an outsider's perspective to both X and the Brazilian Supreme Court. I see articles posted constantly about both, and they both stir up controversy.
Agreed. If someone wanted to find a bloody shirt to wave to bring attention to real abuses, Elon Musk's failing $44 billion-dollar tantrum is probably among the least sympathetic victims imaginable.
hexage1814(6)
Given that, under Musk, Twitter has caved into such governments as Turkey and India when presented with a censor-or-quit ultimatum, one would think the historical precedent of what Twitter will do is clear.
Unless Musk's principle is really that one needs to bow down to right-wing attempts to censor speech, and a left-wing attempt to censor speech must be resisted at all costs.
(Either way, Musk's adherence to the principle of standing up for free speech universally is very poor, and I truly marvel at anyone who believes him to be a defender of free speech.)
Unless Musk's principle is really that one needs to bow down to right-wing attempts to censor speech, and a left-wing attempt to censor speech must be resisted at all costs.
(Either way, Musk's adherence to the principle of standing up for free speech universally is very poor, and I truly marvel at anyone who believes him to be a defender of free speech.)
He caves to requests from autocrats and fights requests from independent judiciaries in liberal democracies. That's the more salient dividing line than right vs left.
This is a false narrative. Twitter has said they’ll abide by local laws. In Turkey and India, they did. In Brazil, they’ve made the claim formally that unilateral secret censorship orders from one justice are not legal per Brazil’s own constitution, and so they cannot comply.
You’re using this false equivalence to attack Musk and Twitter as unprincipled when they’re actually being principled.
You’re using this false equivalence to attack Musk and Twitter as unprincipled when they’re actually being principled.
I believe in Brazil the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the constitution is the one who has told Twitter what they need to do. Such a court saying "your interpretation is wrong, this is what the law says" is by definition the local law to which they need to abide by.
Disobeying that court order means breaking the local law of the land. It is completely fair to ask the question why Twitter seems willing to argue that the courts in one country are wrong and the courts in another country are right, when both courts perhaps seem to violate their own constitution. What is their fundamental principle to choose when they declare a court empowered to interpret its own constitution is doing it wrong?
(I'll note that part of Mike Masnick's excellent speedrunning content moderation is a step noticing that it's not actually a good idea to abide by all countries' local laws, because many countries have local laws that people would get upset at you for abiding by.)
Disobeying that court order means breaking the local law of the land. It is completely fair to ask the question why Twitter seems willing to argue that the courts in one country are wrong and the courts in another country are right, when both courts perhaps seem to violate their own constitution. What is their fundamental principle to choose when they declare a court empowered to interpret its own constitution is doing it wrong?
(I'll note that part of Mike Masnick's excellent speedrunning content moderation is a step noticing that it's not actually a good idea to abide by all countries' local laws, because many countries have local laws that people would get upset at you for abiding by.)
I am reading what you’re saying as a belief that governments don’t make mistakes or don’t abuse their power. And that their action should not be questioned or challenged. But I feel all governments are not trustworthy - even in the US where constitutional protection and legal process is great, there are flaws or mistakes or abuses.
In Brazil’s case - when the order to perform censorship is secret, and when the people arguing against censorship are not allowed to have legal representation without implied threats of arrest, how can the public even know of or debate the legality of these orders? It creates an opening for abuse of power, which is exactly what is happening here in my opinion.
By the way, each of the other countries you are referencing is a different situation with different nuances. For example, regarding the liability of lawyers representing defendants. Or whether the orders are done and secret. Or what their constitution says. It’s been a while since I dived into this but my recollection was that Twitter correctly complied in other cases (legally not morally) and is correct to take a stand here.
In Brazil’s case, it is important to note that there has been no new legislation that granted these powers to this single Supreme Court justice who is unilaterally issuing secret orders for censorship. Orders are not issued by the judicial bench as a whole. Some of the other justices have spoken in support of the approach, but it is possible that they are themselves acting out of fear because of how things have gone. For his part, De Moraes claims his power comes from a different court (to simplify, Brazil has two different top level courts with different powers) but it is suspect because courts cannot make laws and because he served in that court previously.
Ultimately though, censorship is bad. Free speech is good. And even if it was legal I think the use of such power is highly unethical and not compatible with democracies. For that alone, I feel Twitter / X is on the right side of this issue, independent of legalities or what the situation is in other countries.
In Brazil’s case - when the order to perform censorship is secret, and when the people arguing against censorship are not allowed to have legal representation without implied threats of arrest, how can the public even know of or debate the legality of these orders? It creates an opening for abuse of power, which is exactly what is happening here in my opinion.
By the way, each of the other countries you are referencing is a different situation with different nuances. For example, regarding the liability of lawyers representing defendants. Or whether the orders are done and secret. Or what their constitution says. It’s been a while since I dived into this but my recollection was that Twitter correctly complied in other cases (legally not morally) and is correct to take a stand here.
In Brazil’s case, it is important to note that there has been no new legislation that granted these powers to this single Supreme Court justice who is unilaterally issuing secret orders for censorship. Orders are not issued by the judicial bench as a whole. Some of the other justices have spoken in support of the approach, but it is possible that they are themselves acting out of fear because of how things have gone. For his part, De Moraes claims his power comes from a different court (to simplify, Brazil has two different top level courts with different powers) but it is suspect because courts cannot make laws and because he served in that court previously.
Ultimately though, censorship is bad. Free speech is good. And even if it was legal I think the use of such power is highly unethical and not compatible with democracies. For that alone, I feel Twitter / X is on the right side of this issue, independent of legalities or what the situation is in other countries.
The Brazilian court’s order isn’t comparable to the court orders from Turkey and India.
The Brazilian court ordered global removal, rather than just to have the content hidden within its jurisdiction.
The Brazilian court ordered global removal, rather than just to have the content hidden within its jurisdiction.
Having to cave to countries pushing for more and more content control is what their predecessors made possible. And it isn't just Turkey or India, it is the US and parts of Europe too.
For years there were arguments that a private platform could censor what they like. I guess some people are just ignoring the repercussions.
For years there were arguments that a private platform could censor what they like. I guess some people are just ignoring the repercussions.
I wish, friend. Even here on HN brazilians will come and gaslight us about the constitutionality of what this judge is doing.
Would be good if you listed all the abuses, violations, crimes happening in Brazil committed by the Supreme Court instead of vaguely referring to something the vast majority of users here will have no idea about, nor any way to research if they don't speak Portuguese.
What remains of justice when the judge is also the vindictive victim and the accuser?
Recently the press published message leaks indicating wrong conduct from Moraes or at least from his minions. In one of the messages they even cogitated — joking? — hiring someone to kidnap those they couldn't get extradited. But what summarizes all is Tagliaferro's, the chief of the supreme court investigative team (yep), answer to a journalist when asked if he was responsible for the leaks. That he, knowing Moraes, "would never have the courage" to do so.
https://www.poder360.com.br/poder-justica/ex-assessor-de-mor...
Recently the press published message leaks indicating wrong conduct from Moraes or at least from his minions. In one of the messages they even cogitated — joking? — hiring someone to kidnap those they couldn't get extradited. But what summarizes all is Tagliaferro's, the chief of the supreme court investigative team (yep), answer to a journalist when asked if he was responsible for the leaks. That he, knowing Moraes, "would never have the courage" to do so.
https://www.poder360.com.br/poder-justica/ex-assessor-de-mor...
- STF started a secret investigation about fake news, which is illegal because it’s not written on our constitution and make it the police and the punisher.
- people under investigation or jailed can’t access this secret investigation, even their lawyers can’t, so they don't know why they're being arrested for.
- STF is starting other investigations without being provoke, which is illegal under our constitution.
- they send one person to prison because he was running from justice on USA, but this person lawyer prove that he never leave the country. Even the USA authorities say he didn’t entered the country.
- they censored a magazine that published a report of corruption inside de court.
- they censored some journal about people calling to end the secret investigation.
- they are trying people who should be tried in the first instance (the US equivalent of local courts), not in the supreme court.
- all orders sent to X (twitter) are secret, including the reason why this person or tweet must be down. which is, of course, illegal under our "marco legal da internet", a law approved years ago that was suppose to regulate internet.
The list can go on.
- people under investigation or jailed can’t access this secret investigation, even their lawyers can’t, so they don't know why they're being arrested for.
- STF is starting other investigations without being provoke, which is illegal under our constitution.
- they send one person to prison because he was running from justice on USA, but this person lawyer prove that he never leave the country. Even the USA authorities say he didn’t entered the country.
- they censored a magazine that published a report of corruption inside de court.
- they censored some journal about people calling to end the secret investigation.
- they are trying people who should be tried in the first instance (the US equivalent of local courts), not in the supreme court.
- all orders sent to X (twitter) are secret, including the reason why this person or tweet must be down. which is, of course, illegal under our "marco legal da internet", a law approved years ago that was suppose to regulate internet.
The list can go on.
> - STF started a secret investigation about fake news, which is illegal because it’s not written on our constitution and make it the police and the punisher.
As far as I know this is disputed and not black-and-white, there's been a back and forth between PGR, AGU and the court on the legality of the Supreme Court on investigating activities that directly affect members of the court (including technical employees employed by the court themselves). I'm not so into Brazilian politics since I left more than 10 years ago but got some context from chatting with some law practicing friends.
> - STF is starting other investigations without being provoke
I don't understand what this means.
> - they send one person to prison because he was running from justice on USA, but this person lawyer prove that he never leave the country. Even the USA authorities say he didn’t entered the country.
What person? Would like to research more about this case.
> - they censored a magazine that published a report of corruption inside de court.
Is this about the "O Antagonista" and "Crusoé" debacle from 2019?
Edit: just checked about the case in 2019 and if that is what you refer to, the request to take down the article was due to the article lying about Odebrecht mentioning Dias Toffoli and reporting that his deposition was reported to the PGR and Lava Jato task force while both denied receiving any material about it. It sounds like a pretty clear case of defamation/libel.
> - they censored some journal about people calling to end the secret investigation.
What newspaper was censored in this case? Also keen to check it out if given more information.
As far as I know this is disputed and not black-and-white, there's been a back and forth between PGR, AGU and the court on the legality of the Supreme Court on investigating activities that directly affect members of the court (including technical employees employed by the court themselves). I'm not so into Brazilian politics since I left more than 10 years ago but got some context from chatting with some law practicing friends.
> - STF is starting other investigations without being provoke
I don't understand what this means.
> - they send one person to prison because he was running from justice on USA, but this person lawyer prove that he never leave the country. Even the USA authorities say he didn’t entered the country.
What person? Would like to research more about this case.
> - they censored a magazine that published a report of corruption inside de court.
Is this about the "O Antagonista" and "Crusoé" debacle from 2019?
Edit: just checked about the case in 2019 and if that is what you refer to, the request to take down the article was due to the article lying about Odebrecht mentioning Dias Toffoli and reporting that his deposition was reported to the PGR and Lava Jato task force while both denied receiving any material about it. It sounds like a pretty clear case of defamation/libel.
> - they censored some journal about people calling to end the secret investigation.
What newspaper was censored in this case? Also keen to check it out if given more information.
> As far as I know this is disputed and not black-and-white, there's been a back and forth between PGR, AGU and the court on the legality of the Supreme Court on investigating activities that directly affect members of the court (including technical employees employed by the court themselves). I'm not so into Brazilian politics since I left more than 10 years ago but got some context from chatting with some law practicing friends.
Hard to say because, you know, it's a secret thing. More info here: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/inquerito-do-stf-incon...
> I don't understand what this means
The judiciary cannot act ex officio. It must be prompted by the public prosecutor or another party, such as defense attorneys.
> What person? Would like to research more about this case.
Filipe G Martins.
> Is this about the "O Antagonista" and "Crusoé" debacle from 2019?
Yes.
> Edit: just checked about the case in 2019 and if that is what you refer to, the request to take down the article was due to the article lying about Odebrecht mentioning Dias Toffoli.
Toffoli name was into Odebrecht spreadsheet.
> Reporting that his deposition was reported to the PGR and Lava Jato task force while both denied receiving any material about it. It sounds like a pretty clear case of defamation/libel.
Funny. Evidence collected from Lava Jato is illegal. But Telegram messages collected by a hacker and whose authenticity was not confirmed, were normally used to free corrupt individuals from jail.
Furthermore, who provoked the Supreme Court to censor this article? Or was it something ex officio? If the Supreme Court was provoked, why didn't they choose another rapporteur for the case? Allowing the case to be judged by the supposed "victim" violates some basic precepts of law.
> What newspaper was censored in this case? Also keen to check it out if given more information.
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/painel/2024/08/moraes-...
https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2024/0...
Hard to say because, you know, it's a secret thing. More info here: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/inquerito-do-stf-incon...
> I don't understand what this means
The judiciary cannot act ex officio. It must be prompted by the public prosecutor or another party, such as defense attorneys.
> What person? Would like to research more about this case.
Filipe G Martins.
> Is this about the "O Antagonista" and "Crusoé" debacle from 2019?
Yes.
> Edit: just checked about the case in 2019 and if that is what you refer to, the request to take down the article was due to the article lying about Odebrecht mentioning Dias Toffoli.
Toffoli name was into Odebrecht spreadsheet.
> Reporting that his deposition was reported to the PGR and Lava Jato task force while both denied receiving any material about it. It sounds like a pretty clear case of defamation/libel.
Funny. Evidence collected from Lava Jato is illegal. But Telegram messages collected by a hacker and whose authenticity was not confirmed, were normally used to free corrupt individuals from jail.
Furthermore, who provoked the Supreme Court to censor this article? Or was it something ex officio? If the Supreme Court was provoked, why didn't they choose another rapporteur for the case? Allowing the case to be judged by the supposed "victim" violates some basic precepts of law.
> What newspaper was censored in this case? Also keen to check it out if given more information.
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/painel/2024/08/moraes-...
https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2024/0...
> The judiciary cannot act ex officio. It must be prompted by the public prosecutor or another party, such as defense attorneys.
From what I gather they used Article 43 from the court proceedings, that's the debatable part but they can act under that, no?
>> Reporting that his deposition was reported to the PGR and Lava Jato task force while both denied receiving any material about it. It sounds like a pretty clear case of defamation/libel.
> Funny. Evidence collected from Lava Jato is illegal. But Telegram messages collected by a hacker and whose authenticity was not confirmed, were normally used to free corrupt individuals from jail.
Nothing of what I said was evidence collected from Lava Jato, you are creating a strawman here.
What I said was: the reporting from "O Antagonista"/"Crusoé" mentioned that there was material being handed over by Odebrecht's lawyers to the Lava Jato task force and to the PGR about Toffoli, while both (the task force and PGR) denied there was ever anything handed over to them by Odebrecht naming "friend of a friend" as Toffoli. And that's libel.
> Filipe G Martins.
Yeah, reading about his imprisonment seems like the Moraes is using a similar heavy-handed illegal approach used by Moro/Delagnol during Lava Jato. He shouldn't have been arrested given the cause (the travel) didn't happen, even though he was part of the coup planning I can't ever condone this overstepping of the court, pretty stupid from Moraes part.
From what I gather they used Article 43 from the court proceedings, that's the debatable part but they can act under that, no?
>> Reporting that his deposition was reported to the PGR and Lava Jato task force while both denied receiving any material about it. It sounds like a pretty clear case of defamation/libel.
> Funny. Evidence collected from Lava Jato is illegal. But Telegram messages collected by a hacker and whose authenticity was not confirmed, were normally used to free corrupt individuals from jail.
Nothing of what I said was evidence collected from Lava Jato, you are creating a strawman here.
What I said was: the reporting from "O Antagonista"/"Crusoé" mentioned that there was material being handed over by Odebrecht's lawyers to the Lava Jato task force and to the PGR about Toffoli, while both (the task force and PGR) denied there was ever anything handed over to them by Odebrecht naming "friend of a friend" as Toffoli. And that's libel.
> Filipe G Martins.
Yeah, reading about his imprisonment seems like the Moraes is using a similar heavy-handed illegal approach used by Moro/Delagnol during Lava Jato. He shouldn't have been arrested given the cause (the travel) didn't happen, even though he was part of the coup planning I can't ever condone this overstepping of the court, pretty stupid from Moraes part.
For the Martins case it seems like there was some actual paperwork issues from the US where he was incorrectly listed as having traveled; hard (for me) to tell whether that was stupidity or malice though.
> From what I gather they used Article 43 from the court proceedings, that's the debatable part but they can act under that, no?
Kind of. The article 43 from the court proceedings, is clear when it says that it limits the power of investigation to the court's premises. The internet does not seem to me to be a court's premises.
> And that's libel.
I'm not sure. And it's hard to analise it since the evidence has either been destroyed or is under seal.
> pretty stupid from Moraes part
one more thing about Moraes that looks like power abuse: https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/blog-do-fausto-macedo/de...
Kind of. The article 43 from the court proceedings, is clear when it says that it limits the power of investigation to the court's premises. The internet does not seem to me to be a court's premises.
> And that's libel.
I'm not sure. And it's hard to analise it since the evidence has either been destroyed or is under seal.
> pretty stupid from Moraes part
one more thing about Moraes that looks like power abuse: https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/blog-do-fausto-macedo/de...
The same court that removed the penalties of more than two hundred confessed criminals during the investigation "operation car wash" [1]
It was the largest corruption scandal in history of human kind [2].
The criminals confessed their crimes due to the sentence reduction incentives of the 'rewarded collaboration' law. One of the most important requirements to get the sentence reduction is "you cannot lie, if you do, you lose everything".
All of it, now, undone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43825294
The criminals confessed their crimes due to the sentence reduction incentives of the 'rewarded collaboration' law. One of the most important requirements to get the sentence reduction is "you cannot lie, if you do, you lose everything".
All of it, now, undone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43825294
I find your comment a little hard to parse - can you provide a link to something more specific about what you are claiming the Brazilian Supreme Court did that was corrupt? I didn't see anything obvious on the wikipedia page.
Sorry, it's hard when it is not my native language.
Yes, they are very corrupt. They are untouchable, and use the given power to their own benefit. The law is deliberately written very subjective so they can interpret and judge as it is convenient to them. They even use their power across their jurisdiction, which has been bringing debate in society lately.
Politics is an exchange of favours in that environment. To have an idea of how it is, I recommend you to watch "Elite Squad II" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1555149/
Yes, they are very corrupt. They are untouchable, and use the given power to their own benefit. The law is deliberately written very subjective so they can interpret and judge as it is convenient to them. They even use their power across their jurisdiction, which has been bringing debate in society lately.
Politics is an exchange of favours in that environment. To have an idea of how it is, I recommend you to watch "Elite Squad II" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1555149/
On one hand, I do want more countries taking social media to court.
However, in this specific case, it's been pretty clear that the Brazilian court orders send to X/Twitter. Specifically, some that order the censoring of specific individuals are illegal. (Some of these orders appear to violate other Brazilian laws)
This is a hard one to really judge. Just a mess overall.
However, in this specific case, it's been pretty clear that the Brazilian court orders send to X/Twitter. Specifically, some that order the censoring of specific individuals are illegal. (Some of these orders appear to violate other Brazilian laws)
This is a hard one to really judge. Just a mess overall.
Alexandre de Moares is the president of the Brazilian Supreme Court, a selected group containing the most powerful individuals in the country. They are named by the president and once they are done, they never leave the position until they reach their compulsory retirement at the age of 75 years old.
They form the highest court of law in Brazil for constitutional issues and its rulings cannot be appealed.
They form the highest court of law in Brazil for constitutional issues and its rulings cannot be appealed.
The president of the court is a rotation, right now is Luis Roberto Barroso.
Brazil has been on a path to authoritarianism, especially since the last election. Moraes, the justice issuing unilateral orders to ban accounts, censor people, and arrest them (for political speech), is drunk with power and doing the sitting government’s bidding. Twitter is right to fight morally, for free speech. But they’re also right to challenge it legally - their claim is that Moraes’s orders aren’t constitutional under Brazilian law.
The NYT wrote previously how Alexandre de Moraes is a threat to democracy in Brazil: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/world/americas/brazil-ale...
The NYT wrote previously how Alexandre de Moraes is a threat to democracy in Brazil: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/world/americas/brazil-ale...
Since 2019 when the "fake news" inquisition started. Someone ran an article on one of these judge-kings, and they basically gave themselves unlimited powers to investigate and judge whatever they want. Then the supreme court turned into a political party composed entirely of unelected individuals with direct power over police forces. That's the true coup.
In case anyone wants context:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423
In case anyone wants context:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36543423
Thanks for those links. I am surprised at what I am reading as it is worse than I thought. It’s also disappointing to not see these angles explored fully in mainstream media, as Brazil is a high population country with significant global economic ties, and this political shift is a huge problem for everyone.
Not explored because you are talking with a very biased account that publicize the discourse of the far right in Brazil. There is nothing illegal about what is being done. Brazilian laws allows removal of online content in case of hate speech, violation of electoral regulations, threats or for benefit of ongoing investigation. If you are in Brazil, you should obey Brazilian laws, and the same is true for any other country.
I'm not an "account". I'm a person. I have a name. I'm not a fake either. My work has been featured here on HN. I post what I think, not some prepared discourse.
I assume you can cite the exact laws which refute every single one of the points raised in the comments I cited?
We're not even gonna get into the censorship stuff this time around. We'll limit our focus to the very specific irregularities of the supreme court which are well outlined in the aforementioned comments. You don't even have to refute both comments, the first one is enough:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
Take the sentences starting with a dash and cite the laws which refute those claims, one by one. Cite the laws that say these judges can do everything that was outlined in that comment. Link me to the law that supposedly allows supreme court judges to investigate, prosecute, judge, sentence and punish others for crimes against themselves. Take your time. I will be checking my threads for replies.
If you refute those points, I will change my world view accordingly, and I will never cite those comments ever again. I will even thank you for making me smarter than I was yesterday.
If you can't, then at least have enough decency to stop commenting this "brazilian laws allow..." nonsense like clockwork. Simply because brazilian law clearly does not allow judges to do what these judges are doing. Also, at this point brazilian law is irrelevant anyway since whatever these judges decide is the real law. I mean, our representatives rejected the proposed "fake news" law, and the judges proceeded as if the law was in effect anyway.
I assume you can cite the exact laws which refute every single one of the points raised in the comments I cited?
We're not even gonna get into the censorship stuff this time around. We'll limit our focus to the very specific irregularities of the supreme court which are well outlined in the aforementioned comments. You don't even have to refute both comments, the first one is enough:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
Take the sentences starting with a dash and cite the laws which refute those claims, one by one. Cite the laws that say these judges can do everything that was outlined in that comment. Link me to the law that supposedly allows supreme court judges to investigate, prosecute, judge, sentence and punish others for crimes against themselves. Take your time. I will be checking my threads for replies.
If you refute those points, I will change my world view accordingly, and I will never cite those comments ever again. I will even thank you for making me smarter than I was yesterday.
If you can't, then at least have enough decency to stop commenting this "brazilian laws allow..." nonsense like clockwork. Simply because brazilian law clearly does not allow judges to do what these judges are doing. Also, at this point brazilian law is irrelevant anyway since whatever these judges decide is the real law. I mean, our representatives rejected the proposed "fake news" law, and the judges proceeded as if the law was in effect anyway.
I keep laughing at the "law" arguments people keep bringing up - even if the law allowed for this kind of thing (which is clearly against the Brazillian constitution), does that make it right?
Yes, the law is apparently abusable enough that it allows the supreme court to deem whatever it wants illegal and censor what they disagree with. Does that mean it makes sense?
These people are in for a rude awakening in a few years.
Yes, the law is apparently abusable enough that it allows the supreme court to deem whatever it wants illegal and censor what they disagree with. Does that mean it makes sense?
These people are in for a rude awakening in a few years.
> does that make it right?
Arguing that angle is fruitless. My fellow brazilians seem to think the law is some kind of holy tome which holds the ultimate truth of the universe. Maybe it's because we never had racial segregation laws like in the USA. There was no Martin Luther King Jr. to introduce the concept of civil disobedience to them.
Hilariously, things are so screwed up that arguing this morals angle is not even necessary. The existing laws already do a fine job at not allowing what these judges are doing. The whole problem is they're the highest court in the country and they're just doing whatever they want with not a single person able to stop them. "Selectively applying and creatively interpreting" the very simple words written in the constitution.
And every single time people respond with impressive mental gynmnastics to justify the judge-king's actions. I've had people argue with me by citing laws lower than the constitution. By getting into asinine arguments over the definition of free speech and censorship. By arguing over "isonomy". By calling me a moron for presuming to do the judge-king's job as if the contradictions weren't there in plain sight for all to see.
> These people are in for a rude awakening in a few years.
I hope I'm here to see it.
No, really. At this point it's a desperate hope. My own parents, who lived through the military dictatorship, asked me to stop saying this stuff online. They are afraid I'll be arrested.
Arguing that angle is fruitless. My fellow brazilians seem to think the law is some kind of holy tome which holds the ultimate truth of the universe. Maybe it's because we never had racial segregation laws like in the USA. There was no Martin Luther King Jr. to introduce the concept of civil disobedience to them.
Hilariously, things are so screwed up that arguing this morals angle is not even necessary. The existing laws already do a fine job at not allowing what these judges are doing. The whole problem is they're the highest court in the country and they're just doing whatever they want with not a single person able to stop them. "Selectively applying and creatively interpreting" the very simple words written in the constitution.
And every single time people respond with impressive mental gynmnastics to justify the judge-king's actions. I've had people argue with me by citing laws lower than the constitution. By getting into asinine arguments over the definition of free speech and censorship. By arguing over "isonomy". By calling me a moron for presuming to do the judge-king's job as if the contradictions weren't there in plain sight for all to see.
> These people are in for a rude awakening in a few years.
I hope I'm here to see it.
No, really. At this point it's a desperate hope. My own parents, who lived through the military dictatorship, asked me to stop saying this stuff online. They are afraid I'll be arrested.
> Brazil has been on a path to authoritarianism, especially since the last election.
I'd say especially since Bolsonaro was elected, not last election...
I'd say especially since Bolsonaro was elected, not last election...
Calling failing to show up or nominate a legal representative to a judicial hearing in a country that offers a ridiculous number of opportunities to appeal as "feud" shows some bias in reporting.
> Brazil top court threatens to suspend X within 24 hours
Last i read X suspended operations in Brazil. What changed ?
Last i read X suspended operations in Brazil. What changed ?
[deleted]
The Brazilians are so lucky to have individuals with unblemished reputation working hard to protect them against misinformation.
chihwei(1)
In 20 hours Brazil could join China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, as the only countries in the world where their citizens are banned from reading Twitter.
We will no longer be allowed to read what Biden, Kamala, the European leaders, the hundreds of thousands of institutions around the world and 350 million fellow earthlings have to say.
All this by way of the sudden and unappealable decision of a single judge this night.
We will no longer be allowed to read what Biden, Kamala, the European leaders, the hundreds of thousands of institutions around the world and 350 million fellow earthlings have to say.
All this by way of the sudden and unappealable decision of a single judge this night.
Where is the decision not appealable? IIRC, X still can appeal to the entire supreme court about the decision.
X no longer has any business or legal representative in Brazil.
If they want to operate in Brazil, they do need a legal representation, it's literally the law.
Which law? No law says that. Also worth to notice that X closed it's office and fired everyone in Brazil because they threatened to arrest its employees which is absurd considering they have no administrative authority or technical capability to comply with those orders.
No, that's not what the law says.
The law says that you need legal representation to be able to do business in Brazil. To sign contracts and pay taxes. Twitter no longer does business (i.e. doesn't sell ads) in Brazil. Twitter fired everyone and left Brazil a few weeks ago.
Twitter is now like Hacker News. A billion-dollar American company (Y) that hosts user-created content, free to be used by anyone on the global Internet.
Hacker News/Y does not need legal representation in Brazil.
The law says that you need legal representation to be able to do business in Brazil. To sign contracts and pay taxes. Twitter no longer does business (i.e. doesn't sell ads) in Brazil. Twitter fired everyone and left Brazil a few weeks ago.
Twitter is now like Hacker News. A billion-dollar American company (Y) that hosts user-created content, free to be used by anyone on the global Internet.
Hacker News/Y does not need legal representation in Brazil.
Last time the dictator threatened X to arrest their lawyer in the country, so X abandoned their operations in the country.
I'm in EU and I'm already restricted by Twitter because i have no account.
what a big loss, what will we do without the bots and memes?
The title is misleading. This doesn't mean the shut down of the website. Just suspending local operations of X, the company, inside Brazil.
X will likely be blocked in Brazil at the ISP level. And this judge-king is also known for threatening arbitrary fines totaling tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars against anyone making use of "subterfuge" to get around censorship. I wouldn't be surprised if one day he wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and suddenly Brazil turns into the the first western country to outlaw civilian cryptography.
> X will likely be blocked in Brazil at the ISP level.
That is not what is being discussed. That's just people on the internet saying that.
That is not what is being discussed. That's just people on the internet saying that.
It was a prediction. Which came true less than 24 hours ago.
Sources are reporting that they do threaten fines of R$50,000/day.
Sad
Maybe this way more people will wake up to all the abuses, violations and honestly, crimes, happening in the country, committed by the Brazilian Supreme Court.