I mean, it's not like I trashed it or compared it to Mozart—I even made sure to include "interesting, stimulating, or tonally remarkable" in an attempt to preempt that latter pushback.
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.
> 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?
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."
What's happening in Pakistan has no bearing on what's happening in Brazil. Just because "twitter is banned" in both countries doesn't mean it was banned for the same reasons or that the ban applies in the same way.
Irrelevant. Disagreeing on moral terms is not the same as deciding it has not followed the law and must face repercussions, which is what was decided here.
You can "be from Brazil" and still not understand the matter. Legal decisions are not a matter of "I agree" or "I disagree". They are a matter of law and facts.
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.
Not for legal purposes, it isn't. Unless you're arguing the morality of the Brazilian Constitution and the limits it imposes on freedom of speech in some scenarios, such as outlawing racism.
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.
You'd think so, but I guess they don't.