5 ms·

> This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. This is unconstitutional according to their interpretatio

> This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. This is unconstitutional according to their interpretation of the (very extensive and vague) article 5 of the 1998 constitution, maybe. At the same time, if you disagree with a judicial order, you probably should appeal the order, rather than refuse/ignore it. Ignoring judicial orders has consequences. > Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). It says a lot of things (that can be interpreted in many ways). Note that it also says "é livre a manifestação do pensamento, *sendo vedado o anonimato*". Did Twitter/X refuse to give information about accounts, after having been asked by the Supreme Court? If yes, then it can also be said that they are breaking article 5 of the 1988 constitution. In general, constitutional laws (in Brazil and elsewhere) tend to be rather vague. The devil is in the details. Just because it says somewhere that "é livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença", doesn't mean that you are free to express your art of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance. > If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries. In general, a person (or other legal entity) are not free to pick and choose what laws or judicial orders they want to follow, depending on their own interpretation of the law. Or, I mean... they can... but there are usually consequences to ignoring judicial orders. Also, it probably is not a great idea to try to intimidate/aggravate/insult/threaten the judge (https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1829005086606901481#m https://nitter.poast.org/elonmusk/status/1829005086606901481...) during those legal proceedings. Judges tend to not love that.

extheat 2y ago
Yes and appeal to whom? Himself, who’s clearly shown himself to be a partisan? Why even need an executive when your judiciary can basically unilaterally function as executive be a legislator in one? Obviously they’re is not the US, but that’s not an excuse to a ridiculous system.
- fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
  If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders). If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts (or auto-removes tweets) for using terms Musk dislikes (like "cis" or "cisgender"). I really don't buy the "free speech" argument here, since Twitter has never been an "absolute free speech" space to begin with. Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
  - Wytwwww 2y ago
    > If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts In the US first amendment protections only apply to the government. Is that different in Brazil?
    - fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
      Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly. Furthermore, there is already a precedent here: both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil until they decided to comply with judicial orders (after which, they were unbanned again). Why does Twitter think they are special in this regard? If the judicial order is (correctly) justified by an inconstitutional law, then it's that specific law that has to be challenged, not the judicial order.
      - Wytwwww 2y ago
        > Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly. These are in no way equivalent. e.g. the first amendment only protects you from the government not from private organizations (if anything them deciding to publish or not to publish your content is an expression of freedom of speech and is right that the Supreme Court has confirmed). Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different. > both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil That's still unreasonable. Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order... Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people and actually might lead to some positive outcomes in some rare cases.
- throwadobe 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > Stop talking about stuff you don't understand. I’ve mentioned the HN guidelines to you before, as this type of aggression is not ideal for this space. I understand you are very invested in this story - many people are, myself included. But this type of comment is not appropriate for Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > 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. 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? I do think though that you aren’t quite responding to the point the GP comment made: First, X has nowhere to appeal to because the Supreme Court has refused to hear their appeals so far, which is something X has stated publicly. And of course, the person issuing these secret censorship orders is a member of the Brazilian Supreme Court, so there is also the conflict of interest. There may be no way to eliminate conflict of interest at this highest level court since other justices may feel intimidated by Alexandre de Moraes’s power, or they may simply be on his side as professional friends. Also, this isn’t just my opinion. Many articles about Alexandre de Moraes mention the lack of paths for appeal. For example the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world/americas/bolsonaro-brazil-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world/americas/bolsonaro-...) said: > Mr. Moraes has jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. He has also ordered social networks to remove thousands of posts and videos with little room for appeal. Second, the GP comment made the point that the judiciary was functioning as the executive and legislative branches. They are correct about that, since no new legislation was passed to give Alexandre de Moraes this power. He effectively gave himself this power from the electoral court he was president of, by proposing to the court that he be granted these unilateral powers. That happened in 2022, and was flagged by journalists and legal experts as a threat to democracy at the time.
    - throwadobe 2y ago
Wytwwww 2y ago
[flagged]
- fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
  > You can if there is a venue for that. If the government is behaving in arbitrary and authoritarian way trusting it to do the right thing is a bit silly... I assume that the judge in question used a specific criminal or civil law to justify his judicial order. If Twitter believes this law to be unconstitutional, the correct venue for their legal recourse is the Constitutional Court, not the Supreme Court. In the meantime, until the Constitutional Court decides to hear their challenge and (possibly) revoke the law in question (possibly with retroactive effects), they still have to comply with judicial orders. From what I understand, the Senate (if they believe the judge in question to be acting outside the law) has the necessary powers to boot the judge from the Supreme Court, if necessary. Twitter doesn't, sorry. > Nobody is arguing about that, though. People are arguing based on the supposed protection that the Brazilian constitution reserves for freedom of expression. This protection is not absolute, though (as pointed out by my example). And constitutional law is not something that is directly applied: it mostly serves as guiding principles for the production of specific civil and criminal laws by the legislative power. "This judicial order is inconstitutional" is simply a bad argument (from a legal point-of-view); a much more reasonable argument is "this judicial order is justified/based on an unconstitutional law" (but that is not the argument that is being made, as far as I can tell). If the judge is justifying his orders based on an inconstitutional law, then you should challenge the law itself, not the judicial order (if you can't really challenge the judicial order, which seems to be the case). > Maybe appointing people who behave like schoolchildren to the supreme court is not the best idea then? You do know that there is a law regulating so-called "deepfakes" in Brazil, right? (https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=9292780&disposition=inline https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=929278...) For someone who claims to be concerned about Brazilian law, Musk sure seems willing to ignore Brazilian laws, whenever it suits him. Also, maybe it's not just the judge that is acting like a schoolchild, in this context. What do you think is going to happen if you talk back and threaten a judge with being arrested, even in a US court of law? Usually not fun things.

extheat 2y ago

Yes and appeal to whom? Himself, who’s clearly shown himself to be a partisan? Why even need an executive when your judiciary can basically unilaterally function as executive be a legislator in one? Obviously they’re is not the US, but that’s not an excuse to a ridiculous system.

fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders). If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts (or auto-removes tweets) for using terms Musk dislikes (like "cis" or "cisgender"). I really don't buy the "free speech" argument here, since Twitter has never been an "absolute free speech" space to begin with. Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
- Wytwwww 2y ago
  > If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts In the US first amendment protections only apply to the government. Is that different in Brazil?
  - fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
    Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly. Furthermore, there is already a precedent here: both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil until they decided to comply with judicial orders (after which, they were unbanned again). Why does Twitter think they are special in this regard? If the judicial order is (correctly) justified by an inconstitutional law, then it's that specific law that has to be challenged, not the judicial order.
    - Wytwwww 2y ago
      > Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly. These are in no way equivalent. e.g. the first amendment only protects you from the government not from private organizations (if anything them deciding to publish or not to publish your content is an expression of freedom of speech and is right that the Supreme Court has confirmed). Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different. > both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil That's still unreasonable. Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order... Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people and actually might lead to some positive outcomes in some rare cases.
throwadobe 2y ago
[flagged]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > Stop talking about stuff you don't understand. I’ve mentioned the HN guidelines to you before, as this type of aggression is not ideal for this space. I understand you are very invested in this story - many people are, myself included. But this type of comment is not appropriate for Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > 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. 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? I do think though that you aren’t quite responding to the point the GP comment made: First, X has nowhere to appeal to because the Supreme Court has refused to hear their appeals so far, which is something X has stated publicly. And of course, the person issuing these secret censorship orders is a member of the Brazilian Supreme Court, so there is also the conflict of interest. There may be no way to eliminate conflict of interest at this highest level court since other justices may feel intimidated by Alexandre de Moraes’s power, or they may simply be on his side as professional friends. Also, this isn’t just my opinion. Many articles about Alexandre de Moraes mention the lack of paths for appeal. For example the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world/americas/bolsonaro-brazil-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world/americas/bolsonaro-...) said: > Mr. Moraes has jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. He has also ordered social networks to remove thousands of posts and videos with little room for appeal. Second, the GP comment made the point that the judiciary was functioning as the executive and legislative branches. They are correct about that, since no new legislation was passed to give Alexandre de Moraes this power. He effectively gave himself this power from the electoral court he was president of, by proposing to the court that he be granted these unilateral powers. That happened in 2022, and was flagged by journalists and legal experts as a threat to democracy at the time.
  - throwadobe 2y ago

Wytwwww 2y ago

[flagged]

fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
> You can if there is a venue for that. If the government is behaving in arbitrary and authoritarian way trusting it to do the right thing is a bit silly... I assume that the judge in question used a specific criminal or civil law to justify his judicial order. If Twitter believes this law to be unconstitutional, the correct venue for their legal recourse is the Constitutional Court, not the Supreme Court. In the meantime, until the Constitutional Court decides to hear their challenge and (possibly) revoke the law in question (possibly with retroactive effects), they still have to comply with judicial orders. From what I understand, the Senate (if they believe the judge in question to be acting outside the law) has the necessary powers to boot the judge from the Supreme Court, if necessary. Twitter doesn't, sorry. > Nobody is arguing about that, though. People are arguing based on the supposed protection that the Brazilian constitution reserves for freedom of expression. This protection is not absolute, though (as pointed out by my example). And constitutional law is not something that is directly applied: it mostly serves as guiding principles for the production of specific civil and criminal laws by the legislative power. "This judicial order is inconstitutional" is simply a bad argument (from a legal point-of-view); a much more reasonable argument is "this judicial order is justified/based on an unconstitutional law" (but that is not the argument that is being made, as far as I can tell). If the judge is justifying his orders based on an inconstitutional law, then you should challenge the law itself, not the judicial order (if you can't really challenge the judicial order, which seems to be the case). > Maybe appointing people who behave like schoolchildren to the supreme court is not the best idea then? You do know that there is a law regulating so-called "deepfakes" in Brazil, right? (https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=9292780&disposition=inline https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=929278...) For someone who claims to be concerned about Brazilian law, Musk sure seems willing to ignore Brazilian laws, whenever it suits him. Also, maybe it's not just the judge that is acting like a schoolchild, in this context. What do you think is going to happen if you talk back and threaten a judge with being arrested, even in a US court of law? Usually not fun things.