5 ms·

It's not complying with Brazilian law or is it not complying with the orders of a judge overstepping his powers granted by the Brazilian constitution?

kranke155 2y ago
[flagged]
- brigadier132 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kranke155 2y ago
    Asking for sources is a way to derail the conversation? Incredible. https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o Here is the BBC Brasil article on the topic. The ban has been upheld by the entire court, not just its more activist judges. A. The law in Brazil says any company needs a legal representative in the country. X does not. B. Under hate speech and misinformation laws some accounts were asked to be removed. They did not. C. Because the company wasn’t replying at all to court requests, they consider that obstruction of justice vs trying to appeal the court D. As far as Starlink they consider it a “de facto economic group under the control of Elon Musk” which is mostly true. Now as far as the Constitution, this is the Supreme court. So saying X has the right to judge the Supreme Court to be in breach of the Constitution, when they themselves are meant to make those decisions, is pretty nutty to me. It's like saying I don't agree with the abortion ban in Texas/Florida so I will continue to do them, since I don't accept Roe V Wave was overturned by Dobbs, so I will just do my own thing, keep doing abortions and f the court. That's a good way to get yourself arrested, which is what happened here. Instead you should look into why do you think this to be the truth?
    - brigadier132 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - kranke155 2y ago
        I no longer believe you are performing this conversation in good faith, so I retire from it.
        brigadier132 2y ago
        > I no longer believe you are performing this conversation in good faith, No, you misunderstand what the conversation we just had was. I was showing everyone else here that you are not arguing in good faith.
        kranke155 2y ago
        Considering your posts were so egregious even the mods took action against them, you actually showed everyone you are most likely a bot/sockpuppet/radical of some sort.
defrost 2y ago
The "rogue Supreme Court Justice" line doesn't fly now that the entire Brazilian Supreme Court have unanimously backed the ban.
- Fidelix 2y ago
  Why do you have to intentionally misrepresent things (lie)? Flávio Dino (Appointed by Lula) Cármen Lúcia (Appointed by Lula) Cristiano Zanin (Appointed by Lula) Luiz Fux (Appointed by Lula) These are the only ones that voted.
  - kranke155 2y ago
    So who appointed them means I get to ignore them? So I could start doing abortions in Florida up to birth tomorrow, because I don't agree about the decision of the Trump SCOTUS?
    - EugeneOZ 2y ago
      Appointed - has influence, it is too simple to pretend that you don't understand it. And no need for allegory - it is just an attempt to deceive your opponent.
      - ricardorivaldo 2y ago
        thats the system, like in USA, the elected presidente chose the supreme court judges, and the judge in question was appointed by a right wing president in 2017 when current one is a left wing from a diferent party. so, yes, influence, but in this situation twitter is acting as a rogue company and refuses to comply with the law, it can fight in the court it they do not agree, but as in most countries, is not up to the criminal to decide what is legal and what is not, for that most countries have a due legal process, as is the case for everything that is happening
        EugeneOZ 2y ago
        [flagged]
ricardorivaldo 2y ago
twitter is not complying with brazilian law, as stated in the constitution, and within brazilian legal framework, the supreme court has the legal atribution of defining what is legal or not, juditiary branch of government is separeted from executive and the judge in question was appointed by a right wing president in 2016 , current one is left wing, so everything acording to the law, telegram had this issue in 2020, they comply and now they can operate, as will twitter after comply with a simple court order, wich is required to have a legal representative in brazil, there is no question if it can or cannot operate, it can, just need to have someone to be responsable for the company and comply with the law

kranke155 2y ago

[flagged]

brigadier132 2y ago
[flagged]
- kranke155 2y ago
  Asking for sources is a way to derail the conversation? Incredible. https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/articles/c0l82k39x28o Here is the BBC Brasil article on the topic. The ban has been upheld by the entire court, not just its more activist judges. A. The law in Brazil says any company needs a legal representative in the country. X does not. B. Under hate speech and misinformation laws some accounts were asked to be removed. They did not. C. Because the company wasn’t replying at all to court requests, they consider that obstruction of justice vs trying to appeal the court D. As far as Starlink they consider it a “de facto economic group under the control of Elon Musk” which is mostly true. Now as far as the Constitution, this is the Supreme court. So saying X has the right to judge the Supreme Court to be in breach of the Constitution, when they themselves are meant to make those decisions, is pretty nutty to me. It's like saying I don't agree with the abortion ban in Texas/Florida so I will continue to do them, since I don't accept Roe V Wave was overturned by Dobbs, so I will just do my own thing, keep doing abortions and f the court. That's a good way to get yourself arrested, which is what happened here. Instead you should look into why do you think this to be the truth?
  - brigadier132 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kranke155 2y ago
      I no longer believe you are performing this conversation in good faith, so I retire from it.
      - brigadier132 2y ago
        > I no longer believe you are performing this conversation in good faith, No, you misunderstand what the conversation we just had was. I was showing everyone else here that you are not arguing in good faith.
        kranke155 2y ago
        Considering your posts were so egregious even the mods took action against them, you actually showed everyone you are most likely a bot/sockpuppet/radical of some sort.

defrost 2y ago

The "rogue Supreme Court Justice" line doesn't fly now that the entire Brazilian Supreme Court have unanimously backed the ban.

Fidelix 2y ago
Why do you have to intentionally misrepresent things (lie)? Flávio Dino (Appointed by Lula) Cármen Lúcia (Appointed by Lula) Cristiano Zanin (Appointed by Lula) Luiz Fux (Appointed by Lula) These are the only ones that voted.
- kranke155 2y ago
  So who appointed them means I get to ignore them? So I could start doing abortions in Florida up to birth tomorrow, because I don't agree about the decision of the Trump SCOTUS?
  - EugeneOZ 2y ago
    Appointed - has influence, it is too simple to pretend that you don't understand it. And no need for allegory - it is just an attempt to deceive your opponent.
    - ricardorivaldo 2y ago
      thats the system, like in USA, the elected presidente chose the supreme court judges, and the judge in question was appointed by a right wing president in 2017 when current one is a left wing from a diferent party. so, yes, influence, but in this situation twitter is acting as a rogue company and refuses to comply with the law, it can fight in the court it they do not agree, but as in most countries, is not up to the criminal to decide what is legal and what is not, for that most countries have a due legal process, as is the case for everything that is happening
      - EugeneOZ 2y ago
        [flagged]

ricardorivaldo 2y ago

twitter is not complying with brazilian law, as stated in the constitution, and within brazilian legal framework, the supreme court has the legal atribution of defining what is legal or not, juditiary branch of government is separeted from executive and the judge in question was appointed by a right wing president in 2016 , current one is left wing, so everything acording to the law, telegram had this issue in 2020, they comply and now they can operate, as will twitter after comply with a simple court order, wich is required to have a legal representative in brazil, there is no question if it can or cannot operate, it can, just need to have someone to be responsable for the company and comply with the law