3 ms·
The context of the whole conversation is related to the Brazilian government silencing it's opponents: > Brazil’s Supreme Court has drastically expanded its po
by davidmurdoch 2y ago
The context of the whole conversation is related to the Brazilian government silencing it's opponents:
> Brazil’s Supreme Court has drastically expanded its power to counter the antidemocratic stances of Mr. Bolsonaro and his supporters.
https://archive.is/plQFT https://archive.is/plQFT
Being allowed to criticize our government (and any government) is precisely the "free speech" Americans hold dear. Brazil doesn't seem to find that to be of value, hence the comment I made in response to someone saying X should comply with the government of Brazil: "I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech".
- angoragoats 2y agoSo you were talking about the ability for people to criticize the Brazilian government, not the US government as you stated. Brazil is not the US and free speech protections there are not the same as they are in the US. Regardless, I don’t believe the removal of content from one washed-up spammy social media site constitutes an infringement of free speech, in any sense of the term.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoNo, I'm talking about the free speech values pioneered by the first amendment of the US. Constitution, and that these values are notable especially because we can criticize our government (and any) freely. The commenter I originally replied to was suggesting that the Brazilian government's self appointed power to silence it's oppressors is acceptable. The context of the original article is that X is leaving Brazil because the people there that work for X are at risk of being arrested and jailed for what people are saying about the Brazilian government and officials. If you stand up for a government that silences it's opposition I'm going to believe you don't support even the most basic core tenets of free speech (as set forth in the first amendment of the US Constitution).
- angoragoats 2y agoThey’re tenets, not tenants, and I don’t think you understand what I’m saying at all so I hope you have a good day. Edited to add: For the record, I support Twitter’s move to leave Brazil. Also, you’re welcome to believe whatever incorrect things you want about me.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoSorry, I'm on my phone using voice dictation and didn't proof read thoroughly enough. Fixed the typo. Thanks. I didn't reply to this: > I don’t believe the removal of content from one washed-up spammy social media site constitutes an infringement of free speech, in any sense of the term. because you're making a generalization on the broader topic. But in this case the government of Brazil believes that what is said on a washed up spammy social media site is problematic to the continuation of their power, and it's willing to jail those who not only say these things, but also those who allow it to be said. I think it seems like the government here disagrees with you. Do you not agree, or am I still missing your point?
- meiraleal 2y agoAll americans are going to be censored on TikTok by the government tho.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoAh, that was last month. Kamala loves TikTok now that she's learned she can use it as a propaganda machine while China slowly molds the youth of America. /sarcasm
- meiraleal 2y agoOh, so your enemies using social networks is a propaganda machine? What a bastion of free speech. EDIT: Yes, I saw your misuse of /sarcasm, which only reinforced your disdain for TikTok, China, Kamala Harris and free speech.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoI can't tell if you didn't see my sarcasm tag, or if you just don't know what sarcasm is.
- davidmurdoch 2y agoYou might be confusing me with someone else.