5 ms·

> the rule of law is an afterthought Are you implying that, given all your knowledge of Brazilian law, implicating Starlink to pay for X fines is against the l

> the rule of law is an afterthought Are you implying that, given all your knowledge of Brazilian law, implicating Starlink to pay for X fines is against the law?

dalmo3 2y ago
Rule of law doesn't mean written law. A written law can be against the rule of law. Conversely, something might not be against the law but violate the rule of law. > "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
- mikedelfino 2y ago
  Doesn't that quote support the judge's position, though? X is being treated just like all other citizens. The page you linked also states "no one is above the law," so I'm sincerely not sure who we're talking about here.
anon291 2y ago
Considering the original requirement for twitter to remain active in Brazil was a human rights violation.... this too is a human rights violation. Speech ought to be free.
- mikedelfino 2y ago
  Are you referring to the speech that the judge ordered to be taken down? I don't know the details, but it seems the request was related to alleged anti-democratic remarks. I'm not familiar with Brazilian law, but I believe that some countries impose restrictions on free speech. Regardless of what was said, it's not uncommon to comply with the judge's order first and then challenge it in court until it can be published again.
  - xinayder 2y ago
    Anti-democratic speech like asking for a military intervention is a federal crime in Brazil.
    - anon291 2y ago
      This is a human rights violation. Humans have a natural right to discuss the overthrow of their governing authorities. I'm not even sure why this is controversial for Americans. In school, we are all taught about the times when our government attempted to do this (and sometimes succeeded), as examples of what not to do. Thankfully, the SC has reversed most of these convictions. Long live the American revolution. Its ideas are needed today more than ever.
- xinayder 2y ago
  Some of the accounts asked to be blocked might not have been committing crimes but ones asking for storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense. So if the original requirement is just putting Musk in his place thinking he's untouchable in his ivory tower is actually following the law in the country is a human rights violation... Then the EU is the most human rights violating group of countries in the world.
  - anon291 2y ago
    The EU does routinely violate human rights as there is no free speech anywhere in the EU. People are regularly jailed in Europe for blasphemy, upsetting people, 'hate' speech, etc. The EU has never been a solid proponent of human rights. There's a reason the American revolution happened (And is arguably more needed than ever) > storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense. Democracy is not synonymous with human rights.

> the rule of law is an afterthought Are you implying that, given all your knowledge of Brazilian law, implicating Starlink to pay for X fines is against the law?

dalmo3 2y ago

Rule of law doesn't mean written law. A written law can be against the rule of law. Conversely, something might not be against the law but violate the rule of law. > "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

mikedelfino 2y ago
Doesn't that quote support the judge's position, though? X is being treated just like all other citizens. The page you linked also states "no one is above the law," so I'm sincerely not sure who we're talking about here.

anon291 2y ago

Considering the original requirement for twitter to remain active in Brazil was a human rights violation.... this too is a human rights violation. Speech ought to be free.

mikedelfino 2y ago
Are you referring to the speech that the judge ordered to be taken down? I don't know the details, but it seems the request was related to alleged anti-democratic remarks. I'm not familiar with Brazilian law, but I believe that some countries impose restrictions on free speech. Regardless of what was said, it's not uncommon to comply with the judge's order first and then challenge it in court until it can be published again.
- xinayder 2y ago
  Anti-democratic speech like asking for a military intervention is a federal crime in Brazil.
  - anon291 2y ago
    This is a human rights violation. Humans have a natural right to discuss the overthrow of their governing authorities. I'm not even sure why this is controversial for Americans. In school, we are all taught about the times when our government attempted to do this (and sometimes succeeded), as examples of what not to do. Thankfully, the SC has reversed most of these convictions. Long live the American revolution. Its ideas are needed today more than ever.
xinayder 2y ago
Some of the accounts asked to be blocked might not have been committing crimes but ones asking for storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense. So if the original requirement is just putting Musk in his place thinking he's untouchable in his ivory tower is actually following the law in the country is a human rights violation... Then the EU is the most human rights violating group of countries in the world.
- anon291 2y ago
  The EU does routinely violate human rights as there is no free speech anywhere in the EU. People are regularly jailed in Europe for blasphemy, upsetting people, 'hate' speech, etc. The EU has never been a solid proponent of human rights. There's a reason the American revolution happened (And is arguably more needed than ever) > storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense. Democracy is not synonymous with human rights.