4 ms·
10 million Brazilians flocking away from Twitter into BlueSky is an argument that even Elon can understand. In case anyone believes this is about "free speech"
by diego_moita 2y ago
10 million Brazilians flocking away from Twitter into BlueSky is an argument that even Elon can understand.
In case anyone believes this is about "free speech": the jurisprudence for the Brazilian Supreme Court decision is American, in fact. It is a doctrine known as "clear and present danger" and was established by the SCOTUS in 1919, by Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr in "Schenk vs. United States"[1].
The U.S. Supreme Court already applied it a couple of times.
De Moraes argued (correctly, IMO) that Musk's non-compliance was a "clear and present danger" to Brazilian democracy.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clear_and_present_danger https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clear_and_present_danger
- vt85 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bakugo 2y ago> De Moraes argued (correctly, IMO) that Musk's non-compliance was a "clear and present danger" to Brazilian democracy. Democracy is when the government censors free speech, got it.
- exe34 2y agoas opposed to elon banning cisgender?
- gordian-mind 2y agoIt's just a word
- exe34 2y agoyou'd think as a free speech absolutist, he'd value the freedom behind each and every word. today it's just one word, tomorrow who knows?
- bakugo 2y agoElon Musk is not the government.
- faggotbreath 2y ago[dead]
- l33t7332273 2y agoDo you think there is any speech that can be dangerous to democracy? Do you think such speech should be allowed to exist?
- Acrobatic_Road 2y agoAbsolutely. We need more such speech.
- l33t7332273 2y agoCan you elaborate who “we” is and why you think more such speech js good?
- jakebasile 2y ago> Do you think there is any speech that can be dangerous to democracy? No. > Do you think such speech should be allowed to exist? I don't trust anyone who claims to be an arbiter of what people can and cannot say.
- yoavm 2y agoI'm sorry for assuming this, but I think this could only come from someone that never felt like they're part of a threatened group. If people are marching the streets shouting "kill all the ${x}!", I very much feel like that's dangerous to democracy.
- ripjaygn 2y agoDoes it apply when x = 'cops' ? https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/eric-garner-manhattan-dead-cops-video-millions-march-protest/2015303/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/eric-garner-manhattan-... https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/black-lives-matter-chant-called-disgusting-by-police-leader/ https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/black-lives-matter-ch...
- yoavm 2y ago
- ivewonyoung 2y agoNot true. It's like if a US Supreme Court justice got appointed the internet czar and started investigating, prosecuting and taking down things on the internet in secret without checks and balances. That would never fly in the US. Here's from an earlier comment: Here's a good explanation of how the Brazilian Supreme Court did a creative and novel interpretation of the law to give itself powers to investigate and regulate the internet without law enforcement or legislative/executive involvement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 That's not enforcing the law. As documented by the New York Times, the first thing the judge did after getting powers to censor was to call a Brazilian magazine article about the person that gave him those powers 'fake news' and got it removed. It later turned out that article was true so he had egg on his face and had to retract his censorship order. > To run the investigation, Mr. Toffoli tapped Mr. Moraes, 53, an intense former federal justice minister and constitutional law professor who had joined the court in 2017. > In his first action, Mr. Moraes ordered a Brazilian magazine, Crusoé, to remove an online article that showed links between Mr. Toffoli and a corruption investigation. Mr. Moraes called it “fake news.” > Mr. Moraes later lifted the order after legal documents proved the article was accurate. NYTimes article: https://archive.is/plQFT https://archive.is/plQFT How is the above 'clear and present danger' ? It's clear cut corruption.
- mc32 2y agoHow was it a clear and present danger? I don’t see it. If we’d considered subversive opinions clear and present danger and it was held up in court we may not have had a civil rights movement or a women’s suffrage movement, etc. It’s like they like protests unless they disagree with the protests and then they label them threats to democracy.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jakebasile 2y agoIt may be of note that Schenck was used by the government to argue that speech exhorting people to burn their draft cards was not protected speech. Spare me the "clear and present danger to democracy" nonsense. ETA: It has also been essentially superseded in the US. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
- HideousKojima 2y agoAlso of note, Schenck is where the (in)famous "fire in a crowded theater" line comes from. So any time that gets brought up in a debate about free speech, the only appropriate response is "Wait, you think protesting against the draft should be illegal?"
- ks2048 2y agoI don't know much about the Brazil case, but I think it's pretty clear it's not about "free speech" because he seems to treat countries very differently, depending on his personal opinion of the government in power (and who knows about any non-public deals). Here's one article about blocking Modi critics in India: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accused-of-censorship-in-india-as-it-blocks-modi-critics-elon-musk https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/twitter-accuse...
- ks2048 2y agoHere's another, more severe case, "Saudi Crown Prince Confirms Death Sentence for Tweets". And remember, one of the biggest X investors is a prominent Saudi. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/09/22/saudi-crown-prince-confirms-death-sentence-tweets https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/09/22/saudi-crown-prince-confi... Musk's "commitment" to free speech is a joke. Edit: This is a bit different of case - it's not X doing content moderation at behest of a government. One could claim Musk doesn't have control over what other countries do. But, he's constantly criticizing and calling-out politicians around the world. But, not a peep about Saudi Arabia. (as far as I know).
- inemesitaffia 2y agoHas nothing to do with Musk. The issue with Saudis in Twitter predates him
- ivewonyoung 2y agoThe article says this: > Twitter sued the government in July over takedown orders, after the government introduced legislation in 2021 aimed at regulating every form of digital content, including online news, social media, and streaming platforms and empowering itself to remove content it deemed “objectionable”. Looks like they tried but India and Turkey passed laws. In Brazil they believe the judge's actions were not lawful.
- curt15 2y agocough China
- 2y ago
- inemesitaffia 2y agoGag orders and compelled speech. wonder why a known corrupt judge doesn't want to make orders in his name. And is hiding rulings from those subject to the rulings. Clearly improper.
- loceng 2y ago[flagged]
- diego_moita 2y agoArgue better.
- loceng 2y ago[flagged]
- jrflowers 2y agoI have thought deeper and realized that one centralized website run by a guy that picks and chooses what I see based on the impulses of his ever-active id is an integral part of my moral worldview. It is ethically imperative that we toil in the posting mines of the doge man’s website so as to glorify Him with memes that do not offend Modi or Erdogan
- loceng 2y agoHumour isn't allowed on HN.
- myth2018 2y agoAlso worth noting that Twitter's terms of use themselves also prohibit the very same sort of content that motivated the Supreme Court order.