This has little to do with freedom of speech - although it was a trigger, it is a matter of national sovereignty: Imagine a brazilian company is the USA, imagine it starts disobeying american laws, spreading false information and even messing with local elections, imagine its brazilian owner starts making accusations against the american Supreme Court offending the judges. What do you think would happen to this guy and his company? American business men having their business jeopardized in a latin american country, than calling it a dictatorship is the oldest tale in the book. We know how it starts , we know how it ends. It is the pre room of economic sanctions and interventions. This asymmetry is called imperialism, and if Australia and the EU don't watch it the Big Techs will make these countries their bitches too. One more thing: Musk is also using his Starlink satellites to search lithium mines in the amazon, so ... sleep with that.
This judge followed a political agenda and persecuted only right-wing people and not hate or fake speech. He censors people what is prohibited by Brazilian legislation
Brazil is a democratic nation where you can freely express your opinions, as long as you don't cross the line into offending others-such as through racism or homophobia. This contrasts with the USA, where people sometimes express racist or homophobic views without facing significant consequences. In Brazil, racism and homophobia are classified as hate crimes, leading to legal repercussions including imprisonment. Free speech is important, but it must have boundaries to prevent the spread of hatred.
Although sometimes I think Mr. Moraes exaggerates, I have to admit that fake news and hate speech cannot be treated as normal, they are crimes. In China and India, certain American apps are blocked. Social media must respect the laws of each country...
It should be easy for an authoritarian government to "prove" that the dissidents who criticize them are racist and homophobic or anti-semitic or whatever is praised seen as a blasphemy against some taboo. And in a world where now you often hear this BS working that "hate speech is violence", who defines what is hate speech and what is hate crime? Much of that is in the eye of the beholder, and it's absurd to make such subjective criteria as "hate speech is defined by those who are targeted". re: "Free speech is important, but it must have boundaries to prevent the spread of hatred". Censorship or "speech boundaries" is a guarantied way to create and spread hatred - it comes as a backlash. Totally suppressed speech goes underground, and creates new channels. If you want provoke a violent revolution, then you oppress free speech with draconian "boundaries" of free speech. Currently the whole nonsense against X suddenly makes Bolsonaro look like a folk hero, which is really bad. It's the same in USA with Trump, or with the right-wing parties in Europe, the harder you put "boundaries" on speech, the more popular they get. It's a stupid and arrogant mistake the "left" often makes - because it makes them look like the cadres of the Soviet Union, and indeed some of these "lefty" control freaks would have prospered under Stalin.
It is important to point out that freedom of speech is enshrined in the brazilian constitution on article 5. However, like much of the rest of the world there are limits to freedom of speech pertaining to hate speech and misinformation. Unlike the u.s, spreading nazi ideology, being openly racist, or mass broadcasting election misinformation (for example) are crimes as determined Brazil's penal code. This is not about free speech but about X desregarding brazilian law.
@emperoremyhriv4968 your country is full of corrupt people but there is no judge to investigate the politicians.. the politicians are in charge of the judge😂😂
@@evaldohonoriodasilvasilva Have you used google translator for this sentence? If you havent noticed, it does not make sense at all. "your country is full of corrupt people" is a too generic introduction. Which scope are you using to describe this? What is the definition of corrupt you are using here? Compared to what? Give some examples. "there is no judge to investigate the politicians" is just plain false. And is also connected to the initial part of the sentence with a "but", but there is no correlation between them. Secondly, is "the politicians are in charge of the judge" a conclusion to the first sentence or something apart? There is not enough information in the first part to backup this. Sorry if you are a junior high student and havent concluded your studies on grammatical and text production.
The minister acted outside the law, his decision to ban X is unlawful. There is an acting senator here that has to sleep inside the congress building because this minister froze all his assets illegaly. This minister is a criminal and most of the court is with him.
We are building something very diferent that what we had before. Then we realize that we are messing whit power beyond our early understanding. Now we are educating ourselves and being able to fight the beast. Which is ugly.
Just a correction it wasn't banned, it was blocked. As soon as X designed a legal representative person/company, X will be unblocked. Elon just need to follow brazilian laws.
@@EuVouAjudar Não tem necessidade de criar esse dilema quando o colega acima só apresentou fatos sobre a situação. (Deviam parar de comparar o x videos com o Twitter na questão de legislação, não é o argumento que você acha que é).
@@EuVouAjudarSe você ler a decisão judicial verá que não é só isso. São reiterados os descumprimentos de decisões judiciais. Alguém sabe dizer em qual parte da Constituição Federal o Brasil abre mão de sua soberania e atribui à um bilionário estrangeiro a possibilidaxe de dizer o direito no país? De decidir o que é legal ou ilegal no país? De decidir se cumpre ou não as decisões do poder judiciário no país?
What about US ban of RT and TikTok? Im waiting a video about how banning TikTok, RT and shut down pro Palestinian content is related to US free speech.
If it breaking and unacumplishing USA laws...need to do...the USA democracy is weak and working just to the power interests ... 6,5 bi U$ to the Elon selling smoke... and don't heaving at least a decent Health care, a lot of poor's and fucked people from the USA system of neoliberalism people's rape... USA is a mess
This judge followed a political agenda and persecuted only right-wing people and not hate or fake speech. He censors people what is prohibited by Brazilian legislation
These days, disinformation on social media causes unnecessary social conflicts, requiring tremendous efforts to resolve. While freedom of speech is an important human right, those who spread misinformation or engage in hate speech must be held accountable.
@@Sparky_D Sorry your comment was deleted. Deciding what counts as hate speech can be tricky. First, each platform, like TH-cam, has its own rules about what’s acceptable. These guidelines try to define hate speech, but they can be a bit subjective and might differ from one platform to another. Sometimes, comments might be removed even if you’re stating facts, especially if they’re seen as controversial or potentially harmful. Next, societal norms also play a role. What’s considered hate speech can vary depending on general social attitudes and values. So, something that’s seen as hate speech in one place might not be in another. Lastly, there are legal standards to consider. Different countries have laws about hate speech and misinformation. If a comment breaks these laws, it might get flagged or removed, and you could even face legal consequences. While platforms try to enforce rules fairly, their decisions aren’t always perfect. If you think your comments are being unfairly removed, it might help to review the platform’s guidelines and think about how your comments might be interpreted. In any case, it’s always a good idea to share your opinions carefully and be aware of how your words might affect others online.
It's not just an abstract "human right." Free-flowing information is the foundation of democracy, without which voting would become meaningless. How can people participate in democracy when they have no information to base their decisions on?
@@Gimlet6051 The problem with these regulations is that power is convenient and self-serving. That's a part of human nature that's well-reflected by history. The potential harms from misinformation do not come close to the harms from an overreaching government controlling the flow of information among its citizens.
And don't forget that some of the "free-speech" that "serves democracy" that was banned was neonazism, facism and shit like that. How are you damaging democracy when you're banning people who defend a military coup d'etat (which a lot of Brazilians do)?
Let’s hope so! (I am from Brazil). But seriously, all social media platforms should be held accountable for their content. They profit from the content, so it is just fair. Fortunately, not all countries operate under the same premise as the USA. The "freedom of speech at all costs" motto can be quite destructive because some people simply want to see the world burn, while others are just too dumb. Freedom is an amazing gift, but there should be limits when one’s freedom harms others.
Not how it works, they're either a social media platform or a media company that edits its content, being a social media company makes them not liable for actions and words by its users, a media company with an editorial staff is liable because they control the content, social media is a platform for others to express themselves, you can't hold them accountable for some loon that creates an account and does whatever. And you can't provide one example of freedom of speech being harmful, a Batman Dark Knight quote won't suffice, you have to have an actual argument to support the curtailing of our most important human right.
@@DaniboyBR2 Of course, anyone can frame the situation however they want, and social platforms naturally prefer to say they are not generating content-they're just the tool, while the users are the ones generating the content. But what happens when users generate illegal content? The point is, the definition of what is "illegal" varies by country. Here in Brazil, some individuals who have been legally prohibited from posting on social media are still using Twitter. Maybe in the U.S., people have the right to maintain their online presence indefinitely, but here in Brazil, under Brazilian law, they can’t continue using their accounts. It doesn’t matter that Twitter is no longer directly operating in Brazil or that its servers are located elsewhere; in Brazil, Brazilian law prevails. Let’s not be hypocritical: Musk is not a free speech champion. Twitter is quick to comply when it comes to India or Turkey, and there are many cases of accounts being blocked or banned simply because Musk dislikes what he sees. Regarding absolute freedom harming others, we don’t have to look far. Just consider how many lives have been lost because Americans fight to the death for the "right to bear arms" in the name of "freedom," yet struggle to accept the concept of free education or free healthcare.
@@HenriqueCSJ But prohibiting people from using social media in Brazil is illegal, censorship is illegal in Brazil, the law clearly states that, when a judge orders something illegal, it is our moral obligation to disobey, don't you agree? Turkey has censorship codified in its laws, Brazil has free speech codified in its laws, and censorship is prohibited, Elon Musk was ordered to break laws in Brazil, the US, human rights accords, and he refused, thats the moral, ethical and lawful way to act, Zuckerberg though, he acted according to his interests, in violation of the law, he should be worried about it. And yes, there's no such thing as free education, free healthcare, these are services and they cost money to support, nobody works for free except slaves, so you need resources to keep an education and healthcare system, meanwhile rights are free, they are not the same as services, the right to bear arms and free speech are human rights, necessary to maintain democracies and free peoples, if you cannot defend yourself, in speech and/or in arms, you're not free, don't you agree?
@DaniboyBR2, first, I apologize if my previous message came across as impolite. That was not my intention. As I'm not a native English speaker, I sometimes may not express myself as clearly as I intend. I agree with you that no judge should act autocratically, and it’s likely that de Moraes was heavy-handed in this case, especially with the decision to block StarLink's assets. However, the Twitter block was ratified by all the Supreme Court justices, and I believe it’s important to send a message to the billionaires abroad that, despite their beliefs, they can’t always have things 100% their way. I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t pretend to know if the Supreme Court’s action violated the Brazilian constitution, but it’s clear that our laws need to be updated to better address the complexities of the online world. In this particular case, I do believe that individuals like Monark, who was ordered to stay off social media, should not be allowed to use it. When you break the law or a judicial order, you lose certain liberties. Regarding guns, I believe we disagree. In my opinion, guns should only be for those who truly deserve one, not for just anyone who wants one. Why should ordinary citizens have access to assault rifles and machine guns? I'm glad that here in Brazil, we haven’t reached that point yet.
@@HenriqueCSJ The law is still the law, and these judges are approving of an illegal censorship action, to criminalize political opponents, and not all judges voted, only the ones aligned with the uber corrupt political establishment in Brazil, the decision will be voted by the whole court, and most likely it will be 9-2, the 2 justices that were appointed by Bolsonaro will follow the law, most likely, and the other 9 will support the illegal, human-rights violating crime of censorship, because the regime in Brazil is corrupt and criminal, not because this is right or lawful.
I would like to add a correction to some comments here: Twitter is suspended, not banned from the country. It may resume operating in Brazil as soon as it complies with court orders. Personally, I find it curious that the coutries whose authority he questions (Australia, England and Brazil) all have recently elected left-leaning leaders. He has no problem sensoring posts in countries like Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia - ruled by right-wing leaders where oppositionists are actually jailed for tweets, or worse.
Actually, the Brazilian X directors were under arrest risk because X was not complying with the Supreme Court orders. Then X fired everybody and closed the Brazilian offices. However, social media platforms are required by Brazilian law to have representatives in Brazil. So the moment X had no representatives in Brazil, it was illegal to operate in the country. The judge have a deadline for X to appoint a representative in Brazil, which it declined to do.
Para de inventar mentira! DONT EXIST RISK OF PRISION. LIES OF MUSK. De acordo com a lei Brasileira, se não há um representante , um juiz pode INDICAR alguem da empresa para se-lo (o representante não sofre nenhum processo, mas seria OBRIGADA A COMPARECER EM JUIZO)e por isso o Musk demitiu todo mundo, para não ter como ter representante. E NÃO EXISTE PRISÃO PARA FUNCIONARIOS DE EMPRESA QUE ESTAO CUMPRINDO ORDENS. Parece que não conhece a propria lei, vira lata de gringo!
You're wrong. There is no law in Brazil that demands a social media company to have lagel representatives here. The only law that demands that states that only companies that operate here need it, as X does not operate here, it doesn't need one.
that is incorrect. They were informed that the consequences of not complying with the court order could include prison. It's not a threat. When the police says "if you murder you'll get arrested" it's not a threat. It's a statement of fact.
@gandralf well, if you have a company and want to work and profit in a country you have to respect the laws of that country. Otherwise, just don't open on that place, even if it's a company on the internet, you are selling advertisements and accounts on the place. Freedom comes with responsibility, always.
Well , banned is a hard word. It has been suspended until the company complies with court rullings. People are saying that the government "banned" the social network. But government has not done so. In fact there is separation of Power and this is a legal matter.
Freedom of speech is enshrined in many countries. But all countries, including the US, have different definitions of what constitutes freedom of speech. There is no universal definition.
This is absolutely illegal in Brazil, you cannot censor media companies, people, etc, in Brazilian legislation, they are violating the law, Elon Musk is not.
A Liberdade de expressão não pode infligir os direitos humanos de outras pessoas ou o direito constitucionais das outras pessoas. O Elon Musk permitia que pessoas condenadas por crimes cibernéticos tivessem acesso as redes sociais, isto não é liberdade. Você não pode defender a liberdade de um criminoso, porque um dia este criminoso vai defender a liberdade de matar e não ser preso, como aconteceu no Paquistão, um irmão matou sua irmã e disse que foi em prol de liberdade, e a população defendeu ele, não a irmã. Se um predador de crianças usa as redes sociais para atrair suas vítimas, esta pessoa tem direito a ter rede social? Você aprovaria que uma pedo tivesse acesso a sua filhinha? Não, né? A Liberdade precisa ter limites para que a sociedade evolua, ou os criminosos vão pedir liberdade de cometer seus crimes e sair impune, se não você não vai saber se uma informação é falsa ou verdadeira, se não o seu diploma do ensino superior não valerá para nada, porque tudo será constatado em prol da liberdade sem limites e no fim quando você ficar doente não saberá se seu médico é formado ou não, porque a liberdade de contrata qualquer um sem qualificação será defendida. A Liberdade de parte no seu carro e fugir sem prestar socorro, a liberdade de bater em cônjuge e não ser preso, a liberdade de pegar a própria filha, a liberdade de atacar o país dos outros e pegar metade dele sem consequências, a liberdade de roubar sem ser preso. A Liberdade de perseguir se livrar de qualquer étnia que não seja supostamente pura. Então qual liberdade você quer defender? A Liberdade de ir e vir sem ser atacado na rua? de usar a rede social ser sofrer ciberbullying? Ou a liberdade que um criminoso quer usar para sair da cadeia e mandar para Deus todo mundo que fica em seu caminho?
@@jufrota8017 Não infringe, liberdade de expressão é o direito fundamental mais importante de todos, é o que te permite fazer essa defensa de censura, absurda, é o que me permite te refutar, crime virtual no Brasil é censura, falar não é crime, leia nossa Constituição, a lei mais importante do país.
@@jufrota8017 A liberdade de poder criticar o governo e não ser preso por isso. Seus exemplos não tem nada a ver com quem foi bloqueado no Brasil e porquê. Deputados e civis sem envolvimento com qualquer crime tiveram suas contas perseguidas e pedidos de censura. Vai defender censura agora? Hipócrita
@@DaniboyBR2 Falar não é crime? Depende. Se sua fala é criminosa, é crime sim. Nossa constituição não protege crimes cometidos através da fala ou da escrita.
Não, pelo contrário, as atuações desse juiz no Brasil tem sido de um ditador ( ele mandou cidadãos a 17 anos de prisão, simplesmente por se manifestar contra o atual governo, sem contar multas absurdas, congelamento de contas bancárias), este juiz quer acabar com a democracia, impedindo uma oposição de se manifestar, usando o termo "fake news"(quando é uma verdade que eles querem esconder). Musk tem sido aplaudido pelo povo. O X tem tido adesão pelo povo do Brasil, pela atitude de Musk.
Exactly freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to commit crimes, and also, doesn't take of the responsibility that you carry for what you said with your freedom of speech. Simple as that
Elon has political and economical interests and uses the social network to reach those interests by supporting politicians in Brazil who are on his side. The thing is, a foreigner shouldn't have such kind of impact on internal issues, so when he do that he needs to respond to it, by not having operations in Brazil the Brazilian law cannot reach him, which is illegal So we happy he's not here anymore, because his goal there's nothing to do with free speech but with controlling the political system according with his goals even though it put the Brazilian people in risk of a coup that can lead to death and poverty
There is an aspect that may be overlooked: Brazilian law, specifically the so-called "Marco Civil da Internet" (Law 12.965 of 2014), requires internet providers to have a representative on Brazilian soil in order to operate. By closing his office in Brazil, Elon Musk voluntarily puts himself in a position of being unable to operate, while also attempting to avoid paying debts to the Brazilian government. In fact, this last point was what enabled the enforcement of legislation affecting Starlink. In Brazil, companies in the same "de facto economic group," meaning with the same controlling entity, are jointly liable for debts owed to the state and other creditors. It is worth noting that Brazilian employees laid off by X complained that not all severance payments required by Brazilian law were fully paid, at least initially. The democratic Brazilian government has effective means to handle claims and disagreements, which do not involve disobedience to laws or judicial decisions.
Valid point. But there is more than freedom of speech in this squabble. It is about land and resources grab, not to say in least a treatment towards Latin America as if we were vassals . Notice Elon's narrative is echoed by the stallwarts of America' s corporativism ....the FCC, Peter Thiel , Bill Ackerman , the paypal mafia. When we finally have a leadership that, for better or worse shouts loud and clear , enough is enough, these pirate crony capitists comes lambasting us for lack of freedom and threatening capital flight. Times have not changed our standing with tne empire . The players did.
Requires too the judge justification to remove content, what the judge don't provide, only demands censorship without any process or proof. It is funny how much people, for ignorance or pure evil, omit the details of the situation.
X is not an internet service provider, it does not qualify for this law. An internet service provider would be Starlink, Vivo, Claro, Algar Telecom etc. The orders of the minister were unlawful by brazilian constitution and internet civil act
and YOU (or Musk) are better informed about Brazilian law than the Ministers of the Supreme Court. What is your law degree? Why aren't YOU sitting in the Supreme Court if you're so knowledgeable?
In fact, it should be the beginning of realizing how harmful and powerful social networks are, the internet needs to have more control against fake profiles and content.
And who exacly will define what is fake and what is real? Because at least brazil cant be truated when we had 75 cases of fake news about the economy and "attacks against democracy" in one month at february 2024 here. Besides companies already have system and there are bilions of users correcting others, if you dont double check thats your problem, not of anyone else.
I'm from Brazil and want to thank you for treating this in a serious manner. There's so many opinion blogs posed as journalism that is a relief watching you talking about it as news and clarifying it. X was not banned, just blocked until they have a legal reprensative here again. Brazil is not US backyard and freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to lie or misinform.
you keep talking about free speech first, but its literally crimes. If it is a crime then its not free speech, they are dealing with crimes, not free speech, its very different the way you guys are putting it like that. Free speech its you critiize a government and saying what is wrong and what could be done, free speech its not organizing riots to take over power and destroy the supreme court, threaten with death, destroying buildings... can you see the difference?
That's a lie though. The majority of people being censored for criticizing the government. They use "threat to democracy" as an excuse. Just like every dictator does.
Free speech is not a crime. The people threatening violence are the left, they are allied with organized crime in Brazil. This censorship is criminal, it violates Brazilian law, read article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution, it is 100% illegal, its pure left-wing tyranny.
Freedom of speech is incredibly important but it should not cover the right to spread mis and dis information but I also understand that thats incredibly hard to define so it's so complicated ugh.
The idea that free speech needs protection is precisely because no single person or authority should dictate what counts as misinformation. If that were the case, people with power will simply ban anything that inconveniences them as misinformation.
Not really, though. (For example)The right wingers are saying our electoral system is corrupt. There are audits from various organs, witnessed by many people, including international representatives, before, during and after the election. Never has it been found any breach. They make a claim that it was cheated, the judge ordered them to provide proof in 72 hours, which is within the law that they must provide. No proof is given, they are ordered to stop spreading the lie or they will face consequences. No complications there, simply lies being spread and not backed by proof of their claims.
@@deleted01 X is being suspended, in this case, because it is a prerogative in Brazil for a company that has a high frequency of Brazilian users to have representation on Brazilian soil. Nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is also a very important right in Brazil. But this right is not absolute, no right is absolute in Brazilian law if this right overlaps (overrides) other rights. [sorry for my bad English] When disinformation is proven to be what it is, a lie -- there will be consequences under Brazilian law. This was the case of the Court requiring X to remove such profiles. And in Brazil, everyone has the right to defend themselves practically forever. This was not the case with X, who could easily appeal, but he (Musk) decided to throw the shit he himself shit into the fan.
Bom, não é liberdade de expressão planejar derrubar um governo democrático, não é liberdade de expressão ser racista, ser nazistas, a liberdade de expressão se limita como a liberdade em si, ela vai até a liberdade do outro. Se a sua liberdade está prejudicando alguém então você já não pode mais ser totalmente livre. No caso, as contas que precisavam ser banidas eram contas de pessoas que tentaram praticar um golpe de estado no Brasil, pedindo a volta da Ditadura Militar. Essas pessoas incitaram, planejaram, financiaram outras que invadiram no Congresso e acamparam em frente a Quartéis Militares pedindo pela volta da ditadura no Brasil. Isso é um crime e a partir do momento em que essas pessoas cometeram um crime ela sperderam seus direitos de liberdade.
9:40 - to the left, the judge isn't a hero, he's just applying Brazilian's rules. We're just following our rules here. Twitter is not complying, so until it starts to comply again, and have a legal representation in Brazilian's ground, pay the tickets, etc etc, it will not operate here
Alexandre de Moraes was appointed to the Supreme Federal Court by former president Michel Temer, a right wing politician. Lula da Silva, the current president of Brazil, is left wing, so they belong to diferent political corners. Moraes is far from being a hero to the left, but he is respected as someone that is reinforcing brazilian laws.
Temer right wing Buddy ,Temer is litterally from the MDB, a centrist party, and was apart of the PT goverment, a leftist goverment How the hell is Temer a right-wing And Moraes cant even be considered right-wing or left-wing when all he does is call anything that opposes whatever he says as fake news, and 85% of the time makes decisions without any support from any other power or popular approval.
What do you think it means: selective prosecution? Sure, existing laws look nice on paper, but on a whim they can be overridden with nonsense edicts from on high. A two tier justice system is encouraged by certain religions, and kinds of politics depending on your group membership--victimhood Olympics of the oppressor versus oppressed false narrative of identity politics for the Hegelian dialectic of which Marx as a key devotee. Not all police are moral, and if they are moral, they can be fired for not following formerly unlawful orders, now countermanded by corrupt politics.
For the record Twitter was not blocked for "what can and can't be said online". It got locked because Elan fired the legal representative and foreign companies are not allowed to operate in Brazil without one
No, you're wrong. The law states that a company that operates in Brazil needs a legal representative, X doesn't operate in Brazil so it doesn't need one. The order is unlawful
For the record Twitter doesn't operates in Brazil. It has no server here and now there is no office here. Just because you can access a website through the Internet it means that the website owner "operates in Brazil"? Don't play dumb on us.
@@cirosobral the people who made up that BS are the ones playing dumb, and doing so in order to manipulate actual dumb people into defending their private interests. Twitter is a corporate entity that operated in Brazil, this is a fact and not something you can refute by interpreting the word differently
The majority of Brazilians support the ruling of the Supreme Court. If a company wants to operate in Brazil it has to have a legal representation here. Follow the law and don't get blocked
@@jeanmatsunaga5711 He was with the president today in the 7 of September, look the "immense" support both received, then see the massive ammount of people who don't support him in the protests. The reality crushes your pathetic narrative.
Also, like in US, a company needs to have a Tax ID and a representative. Musk decided to leave and continue to operate, which is illegal. So wasn't only the political side... basic business decisions also.
One of the reasons for the suspension of X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil is its refusal to cooperate with police investigations involving serious crimes like child pornography and accounts linked to the PCC (First Command of the Capital). The platform allegedly resisted providing information or taking action against accounts suspected of being involved in these crimes, which led to the intervention of Brazilian authorities. Social media platforms have a responsibility to cooperate in investigations of such grave matters, especially when public safety is at stake.
The X accounts whose banning was requested committed crimes disguised as political opinions. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the decision, including the judges appointed by the former president of Brazil. The Brazilian Supreme Court is independent and will enforce Brazilian law. No foreign company can operate in the country without legal representation. X was repeatedly fined for failing to comply with decisions and not paying the fines. All possibilities and leniencies were applied to avoid harming users, but there is a limit. There was no precision threat to any team; what Musk did was disrespect the Brazilian people. Here in Brazil, freedom of expression extends only to the point where personal freedom does not cause harm to others through hate crimes, verifiable lies, and interference in electoral processes. Here, you cannot say whatever you want, whether in the streets, on television, or on social media. Here, you must be responsible for your words and respect the Constitution, which makes this clear in several articles. Gentlemen... in these accounts, a coup d'état was suggested. In your countries, can you promote coups d'état? Can you promote racism? Xenophobia? Political persecution? I believe that in Spain, for example, anyone who did this would go to jail much faster, just like the separatists in Catalonia. There are no problems with other networks because they comply with Brazilian decisions and laws. Freedom of expression is not freedom to commit crimes. And no one, due to their economic status, is above the law-not politicians, not judges, not businessmen from here or another country. The only fear of jail, in a free and democratic country, is that of those who know they are guilty. Musk crossed the line by violating the court, Brazilian laws, and interfering in other people's political processes. If it fits, X will be reactivated, for sure. The world is tired of lies and rhetoric on networks without responsibility for the truth. The Brazilian press is intensely discussing the issue, with freedom, at this moment, with diverse but respectful opinions. And it will remain that way permanently in Brazil. I know Brazilians may have different opinions. But the proof that there is no persecution of anyone in Brazil is that he can challenge me here on TH-cam or in Brazil, as he wishes. Regards.
This is not a case about free speech at all. It's about rule of law. Brazilian laws allows restrictions ONLY on contents, not on whole accounts. (Art. 19, Lei 12.965/2014). And even when an order is issued to remove certain content, it must be strictly specified (§ 1º and § 4º, Art. 19, Lei 12.965/2014). And last but not least, the orders cannot be secret. The user must be informed about the reasons for the takedown of their content and must be able to contradict on a due process (Art. 20, Lei 12.965/2014). All those points are not being followed by Moraes on his orders.
And for those who see all this people arguing in favor of Moraes actions, see if they can base their arguments on Brazilian laws. Some even cite "the Brazilian Constitution. But for those who are not familiar with its text, I say: anything can be defended (or attacked) based on interpretations of the Brazilian Constitution. Don't trust me, go read the text of the Constitution. Read Article 5 and all its 77 clauses and 2 paragraphs. Then go back to Articles 1 to 4 and see how the Constitution's house of cards collapses.
Finalmente um comentário sensato! E infelizmente eu tive que rolar rolar e rolar até encontrar. Estou muito chocada com as pessoas defendendo isso! Batem na tecla “ain pq o código civil exige que tenha representante legal” e esquecem de mencionar a total ilegalidade/inconstitucionalidade dos procedimentos adotados pelo Alexandre de Moraes nas suas decisões! Qual a razão de querer que esse tipo de ordem seja segredo de justiça (banimento de contas inteiras por causa de alguns posts)? Não tem motivo relevante pra isso. É total afronta à liberdade de expressão sim!!! E o uso das ferramentas do judiciário pra satisfazer interesse próprio, com a alegação de “afronta às instituições”? Determinações de investigação, ferindo o princípio da inércia?? É o STF, que DEVERIA ser o guardião da Constituição, rasgando ela e tacando fogo! O pior é ver que isso está sendo apoiado por tanta gente, socorro. 😩
@@Fernanda-mf9zj isso tem cara, cheiro e jeito de ataque orquestrado. Ainda não sei por quem. Mas, com tantas ONG com os cofres abastecidos, assim como faculdades e institutos como o Perseu Abramo, ICL, etc., que certamente tem interesse em fazer esse combate ideológico no front externo, buscando manter a hegemonia em um dos poucos pontos onde a esquerda ainda é maioria: política externa. Não bastasse o Itamaraty ser um antro esquerdista, vide o que diz o Jamil Chade em "noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/jamil-chade/2022/12/07/como-diplomatas-sabotaram-bolsonaro-de-dentro-do-itamaraty.htm", matéria que inclusive teve o título alterado para "Como diplomatas tentaram, de dentro do Itamaraty, conter atos de Bolsonaro" (caso tenha desaparecido o nome no link era "como diplomatas SABOTARAM Bolsonaro de dentro do Itamaraty"). Diversos dos jornalistas brasileiros que atuam como correspondentes para jornais internacionais (ou agências como a Reuters, AP, AFP), também são, vejam só, membros de geringonças como o Observatório da Extrema Direita (www.oedbrasil.com.br/). Mas não demora em aparecer gente por aqui para dizer que isso é "invencionice" minha, que eu estou "vendo coisa onde não existe". Eu aceito até que digam o que quiserem, desde que venham com links e referências melhores que as minhas.
Comply with illegal orders to persecute right-wing politicians, Senators, in violation of Brazilian and American law? I don't think so, they can't do that, thats a crime, the fact that Meta and all others are complying means they face prosecution by the DOJ in the future, its preferable to face Xandão than the DOJ, let me tell you. I'm Brazilian and I rather talk about Lula and Alexandre who can put me in jail than the DOJ, they can get you anywhere, put you in a bag and convict you to a million years in a stone box.
Some comments said the basics, but I think most the comments miss an example. The most important point is that supreme court was demanding a brazilian legal representative for X, and Elon Musk or his CEO refused to do that. The consequences of not having a legal representative in Brazil for a international company is that the brazilian justice can not sue that said company or demand anything from it during court. Let's set a extreme example so which we can see why this is so important. Imagine that someone post one nude photo of you on X, and as it is, the person who had his body expose could not sue anyone for posting the photo, and the brazilian justice could not force the X company to remove the photo. This example scenario could expand to a variety of examples, such as a false propaganda, difaming, etc. And as said in other comments, Elon Musk's Starlink has given the ilegal miners a fast, stable and secure internet, which made things so much more dificult for the brazilian authorities to catch them. And these ilegal miners are also armed (illegaly, in Brazil we don't allow use of weapons of fire so easily like some others countries do), and they're are, literally, genociding the natives of the area to ocupy and mine the area. A big part of this operation is done on the amazon forest, totally destroying the forest to make ground for some landonwers to buy the field and use for growing cows or crops. What is ironic is that when Elon Musk came to Brazil to promote Starlink and had a event with the ex-president, now ineligible, Bolsonaro, he (Elon Musk) said that the point of having Starlink in Brazil was to give free access to internet to the remotes schools in the amazon forest zone. Free. The project never got out of the paper. Elon also said that the Starlink satellites would help monitor the amazon forest. Crazy how this monitoration has gone, hum? If Brazilian justice could have access to the Starlinks payement book's and who has contract them and where, they could really be of help catching the criminals that are massacrating the indigenous natives of Brazil. So the supreme court froze the access to the payement of Starlinks bills, to force Elon Musk to abide Brazil's laws and have a legal representative there. In response to this, Starlink has mailed every contractor difaming the supreme court and said that they will be, if necessary, keeping the service for free, painting them in white and gold and the good guys, and the supreme court lider, Alexandre de Moraes, as a bad guys. This whole saga has a extreme political angle, in which now they're trying to impeach Alexandre. In summary, Alexandre has demmanded to X to have a legal representative. X said no, we don't answer to you. You have no power over us. Then, with months of negociating to try and have a legal representative, X was suspended and Starlink banks accounts was frozen, basically. But, there is more to the story. There has been several ocassions on which X has abode the local governt laws, as Elon Musk himselft said here th-cam.com/users/shortsE8RJsrjtmfs So, why they would not abide to this simple law for Brazil?
The thing here is that Musk thinks that his money is more relevant than Brazilian law in our own country. Everything the judge decided is according to our law. The free speech thing, Elon is considering American law. In Brazil there's no such a thing as absolute feeedom of speech because that allows hate speech, which is dangerous and not allowed in Brazil. And another important thing to consider is the fact that every single foreign company that desires to have business in Brazil must have legal representation in our country. Elon removed his office from Brazil to avoid legal notifications and responsibilities. The judge made only what our law demands. Just go to what is left from brazilian users and you'll see every kind of absurd being said there by brazilians, even nazi stuff is spreading fast there. Brazil did not lose anything without Twitter. We went to Blue Sky, a social media with regulations and is monitored to prevent hate and and other harmful things. We don't need that.
I would like to add that X/Twitter was served (I hope this is the correct term) 10 days before the final communication, which happened on the X profile itself. The representative lawyer who had worked for X then informed the justice system that she was no longer the representative. So, Elon had more than 10 days during which he could have appointed another representative.
Forgot to mention that X closed its office in Brazil so it wouldn't be fined and that in itself is ilegal in Brazil. Every foreign company must have representation in Brazil to operate. This is not political, it's the law.
True. But what you don't say here is that he was forced to close his office because the Supreme Court's criminal organization was threatening them for not complying with illegal orders that do not constitute due process in Brazil. Stupidity or villainy? Choose one.
You may be right, but it's hard to acuse the supreme court of stupidity when your golden boy Elon is the one who decided to give it the middle finger instead of defending his interests in court like "normal" people. It seems pathological that people of his kind believe they are above the law even more in places they see as Banana Republics. Unfortunately, Australia didn't have the apetite to go beyond the hot air and defy the US's media dominance, because in the end, that's what it comes down to. TIC TOK not American = evil. X American = Holy. @@TheTabusu
@@TheTabusuYou may be right, but it's hard to defend your golden boy Elon when he just gives the middle finger to the court instead of defending himself like "normal" people. His kind belive they are above the law, and many times they are. Unfortunately, Australia didn't have the apetite to go beyond the hot air to defy the US media dominance, because in the end that's what it's all about. TIK TOK is fully compliant, but not American so it's evil and should be banned. X disrespects every court ruling, so it's the holy institution of free speech.
@@TheTabusu You may be right, but it's hard to defend the golden boy Elon when he just gives the middle finger to the court instead of defending himself like "normal" people. His kind belive they are above the law, and many times they are. Unfortunately, Australia didn't have the apetite to go beyond the hot air to defy the US media dominance, because in the end that's what it's all about. TIK TOK is fully compliant, but not American so it's evil and should be banned. X disrespects every court ruling, so it's the holy institution of free speech.
@@TheTabusu You may be right, but it's hard to defend the golden boy Elon when he just gives the middle finger to the court instead of defending himself like "normal" people. His kind belive they are above the law, and many times they are. Unfortunately, Australia didn't have the apetite to go beyond the hot air to defy the US media dominance, because in the end that's what it's all about. TIK TOK is fully compliant, but not American so it's evil and should be banned. X disrespects every court ruling, so it's the holy institution of free speech.
By 5:27 : "supreme court ordered suspension of the company/service for not complying with court orders". As mentioned shortly after, this is ONE of the reasons, another being the fact that Musk, disliking court sentences, decided to close and withdraw legal representation in the country, but a representation is demanded by the law, otherwise the company would just go "rogue" (without anyone or anything to ever legally respond for it in its behalf). The claims of threatening with arrest are bullshit. In short, he decided to go full outlaws, just like that. Where in this world does a company or service operate like that? The local law finally banning its activities should not come as a surprise at all. It actually took a very generous long for it to happen.
That’s all a n attempt for measuring forces .. he was going to buy a huge lithium reserve in Brazil and the actual government blocked the deal , most likely because it wants its share in the profits
Brazilian's law allow to remove content from internet, but it does not allow to block people profiles on any platform. The order to block someone was illegal. Elon was just following the law when not complying with illegal orders.
Just to clarify, Alexandre de Moraes is not even remotely a hero for the left in Brasil. Here, when there is a vacancy on the STF, the President of the Republic appoints a candidate for the position. This appointment must be made from among jurists of notable legal knowledge and impeccable reputation, as stipulated by the Constitution. In his case, he was appointed by former President Michel Temer, who, in turn, was from the right - and to sum up, was a rather controversial president during his term. Nevertheless, that said, Alexandre is receiving a lot of support for his decision regarding Twitter. No one could tolerate the chaos that this social network was causing in the country.
No one could stand the sick show of the Bolsonaro supporters. The only people who are complaining and shouting dictatorship are people who participated in January 8th or prefer to remain hidden because they were involved. Musk is a Trump supporter, who has shown himself to be more favorable to Putin, as when Putin interfered in the 2016 elections. Musk is a Trump supporter, a jackal of the radical right and American demagogue crystallized in the form of MAGA, which includes groups like Qnon and other lunatics who attacked Washington DC shouting "hang Pence" incited by Trump. The same thing happened in Brazil, in the capital Brasília, encouraged by Bolsonaro and other right-wing figures, they claimed that there had been fraud, without proof, just like Trump in the USA, and even tried to enlist the military in an attempt to annul the elections, trying to cause political and social instability. There were lunatics camped in front of military bases and calling on their occupants to take up arms and dissolve the judiciary and legislative branches. Does it seem reasonable to allow these people to go unanswered or to continue committing acts of treason and insurrection through digital platforms?
Temer wasn't from the right, he's from the center (centrão). And while Alexandre isn't exactly a leftist, the left has been cheering for him for 4 years now.
This is the third coment that called Temer right-wing He isint right-wing He is of the MDB, a centrist partý that was apart of the PT goverment brign the vice-president of Dilma, candidate of the workers party.
In Brazil far right profiles began mass post inciting school attacks and mass murders, the way happens at USA. In this case the ministry called an audience with x representatives for banning these posts. The representatives refused of course with allegations of violation of terms.
The reason it was banned wasnt even that lol, the posts were constantly restricted from mass viewing, specifically 16- accounts, and were in general insignificant in ammount, X is simply beign banned because people use to screw over the goverment, if it really was aboút offices and posts Discord Bluesky etc Would be blocked, which they arent lol besides the goverment had 75 cases of fake news by february, whereas X had 45 (on the BR community) at the same month, who has less credibility exacly?
After overwhelming notifications, procedural communications, X(old twitter) refused to obey the judicial orders, to stablish a national representation, also important for national prosecution if needed, regarding user rights, for example. Free Speech is also in Brazilian Constitution, article 5, however the rule of law has it's own idiossincrasies and due process of law. The problem with X is related to corporation registry, regarding being foreign company, a regular politics around the world. Brazil has laws and they need compliance. To enforce them is a duty.
It wasn’t “banned” because of free speech, it was because of the lack os legal representatives. Basically, if ANY company wants to operate in Brazil the law requires them to have local legal representation. When Elon fired his, the court said he wasn’t complying with the most basic requirement to operate in the country. It’s not actually banned, it’s suspended. If he appointed a new legal representative, it would be made available again. But I guess Australia is now dealing with his juvenile behavior as well. Don’t say we didn’t warn you…
For those that don’t know the Brazilian constitution, be aware that this isn’t a political fight of far-right versus left. While in the USA free speech is above everything, in Brazil, Democracy is the one that always must be respected according to the constitution. So, of course, there is free speech in Brazil but there are some exceptions as when someone uses the right of free speech to try to kill the democracy, spreading disinformation and organizing violent riots against it. For example, when people do not accept the result of the very transparent, secure, and followed by international organizations 2022 elections. So, dumb billionaires should inform themselves about the laws of foreign countries where they want to make money.
Our Constitution also enshrines the right to information, alognside with the right of free speech. Therefore, spreading false information is a violation against our law.
⚠⚠⚠⚠In Brazil Free Speech is a Constitutionally Enshrined Right! ⚠⚠⚠⚠ But in Brazil, unlike the USA, Free Speech is not the same as free aggression. Its limits are determined by principles such as respect for human dignity, non-incitement to violence, non-defamation, respect for privacy, honor and in the image of people. So you may express yourself, but you CANNOT hurt other people.
As you can read in the comments section, there's ah couple disinformation on this episode. Sounds like you got information from some Brazilian fox news. So I recommend you to take it out to not be responsible for more misinformation.
Wrong, all actions by the Supreme in Brazil are in violation of the highest law in Brazil, the Brazilian Constitution, Article 5. All persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever, Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country being ensured of inviolability of the right to life, to liberty, to equality, to security and to property, on the following terms: I - men and women have equal rights and duties under the terms of this Constitution; II - no one shall be obliged to do or refrain from doing something except by virtue of law; III - no one shall be submitted to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment; IV - the expression of thought is free, and anonymity is forbidden; V - the right of reply is ensured, in proportion to the offense, as well as compensation for property or moral damages or for damages to the image; VI - freedom of conscience and of belief is inviolable, the free exercise of religious cults being ensured and, under the terms of the law, the protection of places of worship and their rites being guaranteed; VII - under the terms of the law, the rendering of religious assistance in civil and military establishments of collective confinement is ensured; VIII - no one shall be deprived of any rights by reason of religious belief or philosophical or political conviction, unless he invokes it to exempt himself from a legal obligation required of all and refuses to perform an alternative obligation established by law; IX - the expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communications activities is free, independently of censorship or license; X - the privacy, private life, honour and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for property or moral damages resulting from their violation is ensured; XI - the home is the inviolable refuge of the individual, and no one may enter therein without the consent of the dweller, except in the event of flagrante delicto or disaster, or to give help, or, during the day, by court order; XII - the secrecy of correspondence and of telegraphic, data and telephone communications is inviolable, except, in the latter case, by court order, in the cases and in the manner prescribed by law for the purposes of criminal investigation or criminal procedural finding of facts; XIII - the practice of any work, trade or profession is free, observing the professional qualifications which the law shall establish; XIV - access to information is ensured to everyone and the confidentiality of the source shall be safeguarded, whenever necessary to the professional activity; XV - locomotion within the national territory is free in time of peace, and any person may, under the terms of the law, enter it, remain therein or leave it with his assets; XVI - all persons may hold peaceful meetings, without weapons, in places open to the public, regardless of authorization provided that they do not frustrate another meeting previously called for the same place, subject only to prior notice to the competent authority; XVII - freedom of association for lawful purposes is fully guaranteed, any paramilitary association being forbidden; XVIII - the creation of associations and, under the terms of the law, that of cooperatives is not subject to authorization, and State interference in their operation is forbidden; XIX - associations may only be compulsorily dissolved or have their activities suspended by a judicial decision, and a final and unappealable decision is required in the first case; XX - no one shall be compelled to become associated or to remain associated; XXI - when expressly authorized, associations shall have the legitimacy to represent their members either judicially or extrajudicially; XXII - the right of property is guaranteed;
The Brazilian Supreme Court ruling was not about what can be or not be said in social Media. It was requested that X appointed a legal representative in Brasil and a previous ruling requested suspension users' accounts which were related to crimes. Mr. Musk refused to comply with both. You can say whatever you want in and out of social media, but if what you say violates laws, you are held accountable. Simple like that. Apparently, Musk's understanding is that the USA legislation appy in Brazil. Arrogant and ignorant to the same extent.
Elon is a ridiculous childish billionaire! Freedom of speech should not allow people to spread hate speech and misinformation… well done, Brazil! These tech guys have to be hold accountable.
Tribal behavior has hacked us. Both are clearly and deeply wrong (authoritarian justice vs billionaire manipulator asshole), but almost everyone is divided into two blind, resentful tribes. More than authoritarian justice or billionaire manipulators, my main concern rests at our increasingly stupidity.
If I make a comment here that is quite compelling about toxic ideologies, it gets censored by AI that is uplifting human misery by supporting such ideologies.
You'll have “FREE SPEECH” if I agree with what you have to say. Musk openly censors words like “cisgender” on Twitter simply because he doesn't like the concept. It would help if you addressed the censorship on the platform as well.
I am Brazilian and I have my criticisms of the Brazilian Judiciary, but Minister Alexandre de Moraes is right! We cannot allow the financial interests of an United Statian billionaire to affect Brazilian sovereignty. This nonsense about "American Free Speech" used by this unscrupulous billionaire is a subterfuge for the shady interests he has in Brazilian lithium. If he (Musk) does not have a far-right government in place in Brazil, things would be difficult for him to exploit the mineral for his incompetent Tesla car company, since it is common knowledge that right-wing governments (especially far-right ones) are sell-out governments and tend to favor foreign businessmen instead of fostering national entrepreneurship. This United Statian has to understand that the Brazilian Constitution is not based on the United State First Amendment and that United Statian legislation should ONLY be applied in the United States. Brazilian legislation on freedom (including free speech, specifically speaking) is very different from US legislation, but the spoiled billionaire does not accept this and wants to force a imperialist interference in another country to satisfy his unbridled greed. Furthermore, Elon Musk deliberately damaged a social network to try to achieve his shady goals, but none of this would have happened if people like him were prevented from accumulating so much power. Elon Musk needs to be placed under a guardianship to prevent him from taking such deplorable actions. There is a lot of money and a lot of power in the hands of this psychologically unbalanced person with serious self-esteem issues like him.
It was an illegal order send by ONE judge. (Who was LULA's party lawyer and is on the supreme court by LULA's choice as president. Also, was this very judge who take LULA out of prision)
X was banned in BR because X refused to pay fees for not complying to shut certain insurrectionists accounts, and not having a legal representation inside the country. Fees payed, representation standing, the blockade would be lifted. This is how it is theoretically.
Liar, they are moderate right-wingers expressing their opinions, criticizing the supreme court in Brazil, one of these accounts if of a Senator of Brazil, Marcos do Val, his account is still up, I can list all the people that were censored, they were criticizing the tyranny of the Supreme court in Brazil that are violating the law to persecute the right-wing. Just go look up his profile, he's not an extremist at all.
Funny that Musk didn't complain about taking down accounts for truly autocratic governments, such as the Turkish government. It seems he only clashes with democracies, while he's quite compliant with dictatorships.
Not funny, this is the law in these countries, the law in Brazil is free speech, the censorship required by the tyrant judges is ILLEGAL in Brazil, in the US, and violates basic human rights accords. Elon Musk would be liable for indictment if they agreed to censor people illegally like he was ordered to.
In Brazil preemptive censorship is forbidden by law, the law that rules social media here is clear: only contents can be asked to be removed, and those contenta must be infringing some law. Also, congressmen have legal immunity over this law, so they cannot be a target of these removals. The order was unlawful because it demanded both the removal of entire profiles and it also targeted congressmen accounts. X cannot commit crimes in foreign countries per US laws, so it could not comply with the illegal orders.
The thing is that Alexandre de Moraes's orders are clearly against the Brazilian Constitution and censorship. That is the point. Strange how many people fail to point that out, or even don't think it's something to be concerned about.
The main reason for the Block in Brazil is that Brazilian law requires that any company offering services inside the Federation must have a legal representation locally. By being a spoiled child and closing the office, Musk gave the Brazilian supreme court all it needed to finally shut it down due to this very basic legal requirement. Twitters undoing is completely sole responsibility of Elon Musk and it's horrible managing of the company
All he wants is the Brazilian LITHIUM reserves , that he thought he had garanteed, But it seems that the actual government wants a share in tbe negotiations .. That’s it He is all about money and profit .. They are measuring forces ..
There is freedom of expression in Brazil. However, as I believe in many other countries, you are responsible for what you say. And there may be consequences. You can speak, but you cannot commit crimes with your speech. How to be racist, or how to spread misinformation that can lead to serious consequences for the population. So you are free to do what you want with yourself, but not with others, that's what the law is for. And to the extent that your statements affect those who listen or read, obviously the law must be obeyed. But if you're not going to harm anyone with your opinions, offend lightly, speak untruths, go ahead.
This has little to do with freedom of speech - although it was a trigger, it is a matter of national sovereignty: Imagine a brazilian company is the USA, imagine it starts disobeying american laws, spreading false information and even messing with local elections, imagine its brazilian owner starts making accusations against the american Supreme Court offending the judges. What do you think would happen to this guy and his company?
American business men having their business jeopardized in a latin american country, than calling it a dictatorship is the oldest tale in the book. We know how it starts , we know how it ends. It is the pre room of economic sanctions and interventions. This asymmetry is called imperialism, and if Australia and the EU don't watch it the Big Techs will make these countries their bitches too. One more thing: Musk is also using his Starlink satellites to search lithium mines in the amazon, so ... sleep with that.
This judge followed a political agenda and persecuted only right-wing people and not hate or fake speech. He censors people what is prohibited by Brazilian legislation
WELL SAID…
Well said, tbh, great sum and exemples.
Precisely
Duvido que algum estadunidense vai conseguir compreender sua explicação.
Brazil is a democratic nation where you can freely express your opinions, as long as you don't cross the line into offending others-such as through racism or homophobia. This contrasts with the USA, where people sometimes express racist or homophobic views without facing significant consequences. In Brazil, racism and homophobia are classified as hate crimes, leading to legal repercussions including imprisonment. Free speech is important, but it must have boundaries to prevent the spread of hatred.
Although sometimes I think Mr. Moraes exaggerates, I have to admit that fake news and hate speech cannot be treated as normal, they are crimes. In China and India, certain American apps are blocked. Social media must respect the laws of each country...
It should be easy for an authoritarian government to "prove" that the dissidents who criticize them are racist and homophobic or anti-semitic or whatever is praised seen as a blasphemy against some taboo. And in a world where now you often hear this BS working that "hate speech is violence", who defines what is hate speech and what is hate crime? Much of that is in the eye of the beholder, and it's absurd to make such subjective criteria as "hate speech is defined by those who are targeted".
re: "Free speech is important, but it must have boundaries to prevent the spread of hatred". Censorship or "speech boundaries" is a guarantied way to create and spread hatred - it comes as a backlash. Totally suppressed speech goes underground, and creates new channels.
If you want provoke a violent revolution, then you oppress free speech with draconian "boundaries" of free speech. Currently the whole nonsense against X suddenly makes Bolsonaro look like a folk hero, which is really bad. It's the same in USA with Trump, or with the right-wing parties in Europe, the harder you put "boundaries" on speech, the more popular they get. It's a stupid and arrogant mistake the "left" often makes - because it makes them look like the cadres of the Soviet Union, and indeed some of these "lefty" control freaks would have prospered under Stalin.
Hahahah 😂 BS
@@leonelgaldinomonteiro4783 se finge de gringo n mongo, kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
FYI, what happenned with X has nothing to do with hate speech.
It is important to point out that freedom of speech is enshrined in the brazilian constitution on article 5. However, like much of the rest of the world there are limits to freedom of speech pertaining to hate speech and misinformation. Unlike the u.s, spreading nazi ideology, being openly racist, or mass broadcasting election misinformation (for example) are crimes as determined Brazil's penal code. This is not about free speech but about X desregarding brazilian law.
Your country is a shithole because of laws like this lol . " Unlike the US " my ass
claro que você só liga pra racismo
@emperoremyhriv4968 your country is full of corrupt people but there is no judge to investigate the politicians.. the politicians are in charge of the judge😂😂
@@evaldohonoriodasilvasilva Have you used google translator for this sentence? If you havent noticed, it does not make sense at all. "your country is full of corrupt people" is a too generic introduction. Which scope are you using to describe this? What is the definition of corrupt you are using here? Compared to what? Give some examples. "there is no judge to investigate the politicians" is just plain false. And is also connected to the initial part of the sentence with a "but", but there is no correlation between them. Secondly, is "the politicians are in charge of the judge" a conclusion to the first sentence or something apart? There is not enough information in the first part to backup this. Sorry if you are a junior high student and havent concluded your studies on grammatical and text production.
zero laws were broken by X in Brazil, the minister that broke the law
It is so heartwarming to see many brazillians in the comments clarifying the situation
Yes, a majority of Brazilians support this decision and is against the childish, time-consuming and illegal behavior of Mr. Musk.
The minister acted outside the law, his decision to ban X is unlawful. There is an acting senator here that has to sleep inside the congress building because this minister froze all his assets illegaly. This minister is a criminal and most of the court is with him.
We are building something very diferent that what we had before. Then we realize that we are messing whit power beyond our early understanding. Now we are educating ourselves and being able to fight the beast. Which is ugly.
Too bad these useful idiots are siding with a tyrant.
@@annemariefrank Info source: Your S. Stop lying
Just a correction it wasn't banned, it was blocked. As soon as X designed a legal representative person/company, X will be unblocked. Elon just need to follow brazilian laws.
Piada!
Vcs tem quantos neurônios?
Kd o representante do blue sky? Ou do X vídeos?
É só por causa da eleição.
Ridículo isso.
@@EuVouAjudar Não tem necessidade de criar esse dilema quando o colega acima só apresentou fatos sobre a situação. (Deviam parar de comparar o x videos com o Twitter na questão de legislação, não é o argumento que você acha que é).
@@Whironn1 O argumento é o tal do representante legal. Ou a lei vale para todos ou é só uma desculpa esfarrapada.
@@EuVouAjudar calma enzo
@@EuVouAjudarSe você ler a decisão judicial verá que não é só isso.
São reiterados os descumprimentos de decisões judiciais.
Alguém sabe dizer em qual parte da Constituição Federal o Brasil abre mão de sua soberania e atribui à um bilionário estrangeiro a possibilidaxe de dizer o direito no país? De decidir o que é legal ou ilegal no país? De decidir se cumpre ou não as decisões do poder judiciário no país?
What about US ban of RT and TikTok? Im waiting a video about how banning TikTok, RT and shut down pro Palestinian content is related to US free speech.
Good point. Corporate and Governmental America' s hipocrisy at its finest.
If it breaking and unacumplishing USA laws...need to do...the USA democracy is weak and working just to the power interests ...
6,5 bi U$ to the Elon selling smoke... and don't heaving at least a decent Health care, a lot of poor's and fucked people from the USA system of neoliberalism people's rape...
USA is a mess
BINGO!
Right wing supporters doesn't care about facts
Perfect 👏👏👏👏👏
Freedom of expression is different from hate speech.
This judge followed a political agenda and persecuted only right-wing people and not hate or fake speech. He censors people what is prohibited by Brazilian legislation
These days, disinformation on social media causes unnecessary social conflicts, requiring tremendous efforts to resolve. While freedom of speech is an important human right, those who spread misinformation or engage in hate speech must be held accountable.
The problem is who decides if something is hate speech or not? These days (including this video) I get comments deleted simply for stating facts.
@@Sparky_D Sorry your comment was deleted. Deciding what counts as hate speech can be tricky.
First, each platform, like TH-cam, has its own rules about what’s acceptable. These guidelines try to define hate speech, but they can be a bit subjective and might differ from one platform to another. Sometimes, comments might be removed even if you’re stating facts, especially if they’re seen as controversial or potentially harmful.
Next, societal norms also play a role. What’s considered hate speech can vary depending on general social attitudes and values. So, something that’s seen as hate speech in one place might not be in another.
Lastly, there are legal standards to consider. Different countries have laws about hate speech and misinformation. If a comment breaks these laws, it might get flagged or removed, and you could even face legal consequences.
While platforms try to enforce rules fairly, their decisions aren’t always perfect. If you think your comments are being unfairly removed, it might help to review the platform’s guidelines and think about how your comments might be interpreted.
In any case, it’s always a good idea to share your opinions carefully and be aware of how your words might affect others online.
It's not just an abstract "human right." Free-flowing information is the foundation of democracy, without which voting would become meaningless. How can people participate in democracy when they have no information to base their decisions on?
@@Gimlet6051 The problem with these regulations is that power is convenient and self-serving. That's a part of human nature that's well-reflected by history. The potential harms from misinformation do not come close to the harms from an overreaching government controlling the flow of information among its citizens.
And don't forget that some of the "free-speech" that "serves democracy" that was banned was neonazism, facism and shit like that. How are you damaging democracy when you're banning people who defend a military coup d'etat (which a lot of Brazilians do)?
Let’s hope so! (I am from Brazil).
But seriously, all social media platforms should be held accountable for their content. They profit from the content, so it is just fair.
Fortunately, not all countries operate under the same premise as the USA. The "freedom of speech at all costs" motto can be quite destructive because some people simply want to see the world burn, while others are just too dumb.
Freedom is an amazing gift, but there should be limits when one’s freedom harms others.
Not how it works, they're either a social media platform or a media company that edits its content, being a social media company makes them not liable for actions and words by its users, a media company with an editorial staff is liable because they control the content, social media is a platform for others to express themselves, you can't hold them accountable for some loon that creates an account and does whatever. And you can't provide one example of freedom of speech being harmful, a Batman Dark Knight quote won't suffice, you have to have an actual argument to support the curtailing of our most important human right.
@@DaniboyBR2 Of course, anyone can frame the situation however they want, and social platforms naturally prefer to say they are not generating content-they're just the tool, while the users are the ones generating the content. But what happens when users generate illegal content? The point is, the definition of what is "illegal" varies by country.
Here in Brazil, some individuals who have been legally prohibited from posting on social media are still using Twitter. Maybe in the U.S., people have the right to maintain their online presence indefinitely, but here in Brazil, under Brazilian law, they can’t continue using their accounts. It doesn’t matter that Twitter is no longer directly operating in Brazil or that its servers are located elsewhere; in Brazil, Brazilian law prevails.
Let’s not be hypocritical: Musk is not a free speech champion. Twitter is quick to comply when it comes to India or Turkey, and there are many cases of accounts being blocked or banned simply because Musk dislikes what he sees.
Regarding absolute freedom harming others, we don’t have to look far. Just consider how many lives have been lost because Americans fight to the death for the "right to bear arms" in the name of "freedom," yet struggle to accept the concept of free education or free healthcare.
@@HenriqueCSJ But prohibiting people from using social media in Brazil is illegal, censorship is illegal in Brazil, the law clearly states that, when a judge orders something illegal, it is our moral obligation to disobey, don't you agree?
Turkey has censorship codified in its laws, Brazil has free speech codified in its laws, and censorship is prohibited, Elon Musk was ordered to break laws in Brazil, the US, human rights accords, and he refused, thats the moral, ethical and lawful way to act, Zuckerberg though, he acted according to his interests, in violation of the law, he should be worried about it.
And yes, there's no such thing as free education, free healthcare, these are services and they cost money to support, nobody works for free except slaves, so you need resources to keep an education and healthcare system, meanwhile rights are free, they are not the same as services, the right to bear arms and free speech are human rights, necessary to maintain democracies and free peoples, if you cannot defend yourself, in speech and/or in arms, you're not free, don't you agree?
@DaniboyBR2, first, I apologize if my previous message came across as impolite. That was not my intention. As I'm not a native English speaker, I sometimes may not express myself as clearly as I intend.
I agree with you that no judge should act autocratically, and it’s likely that de Moraes was heavy-handed in this case, especially with the decision to block StarLink's assets. However, the Twitter block was ratified by all the Supreme Court justices, and I believe it’s important to send a message to the billionaires abroad that, despite their beliefs, they can’t always have things 100% their way. I’m not a lawyer, so I won’t pretend to know if the Supreme Court’s action violated the Brazilian constitution, but it’s clear that our laws need to be updated to better address the complexities of the online world. In this particular case, I do believe that individuals like Monark, who was ordered to stay off social media, should not be allowed to use it. When you break the law or a judicial order, you lose certain liberties.
Regarding guns, I believe we disagree. In my opinion, guns should only be for those who truly deserve one, not for just anyone who wants one. Why should ordinary citizens have access to assault rifles and machine guns? I'm glad that here in Brazil, we haven’t reached that point yet.
@@HenriqueCSJ The law is still the law, and these judges are approving of an illegal censorship action, to criminalize political opponents, and not all judges voted, only the ones aligned with the uber corrupt political establishment in Brazil, the decision will be voted by the whole court, and most likely it will be 9-2, the 2 justices that were appointed by Bolsonaro will follow the law, most likely, and the other 9 will support the illegal, human-rights violating crime of censorship, because the regime in Brazil is corrupt and criminal, not because this is right or lawful.
I would like to add a correction to some comments here: Twitter is suspended, not banned from the country. It may resume operating in Brazil as soon as it complies with court orders.
Personally, I find it curious that the coutries whose authority he questions (Australia, England and Brazil) all have recently elected left-leaning leaders. He has no problem sensoring posts in countries like Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia - ruled by right-wing leaders where oppositionists are actually jailed for tweets, or worse.
Actually, the Brazilian X directors were under arrest risk because X was not complying with the Supreme Court orders.
Then X fired everybody and closed the Brazilian offices.
However, social media platforms are required by Brazilian law to have representatives in Brazil.
So the moment X had no representatives in Brazil, it was illegal to operate in the country.
The judge have a deadline for X to appoint a representative in Brazil, which it declined to do.
Para de inventar mentira! DONT EXIST RISK OF PRISION. LIES OF MUSK. De acordo com a lei Brasileira, se não há um representante , um juiz pode INDICAR alguem da empresa para se-lo (o representante não sofre nenhum processo, mas seria OBRIGADA A COMPARECER EM JUIZO)e por isso o Musk demitiu todo mundo, para não ter como ter representante. E NÃO EXISTE PRISÃO PARA FUNCIONARIOS DE EMPRESA QUE ESTAO CUMPRINDO ORDENS. Parece que não conhece a propria lei, vira lata de gringo!
The judge treated arrest people without trial, what he already did for many, Elon just protected the people.
You're wrong. There is no law in Brazil that demands a social media company to have lagel representatives here. The only law that demands that states that only companies that operate here need it, as X does not operate here, it doesn't need one.
that is incorrect. They were informed that the consequences of not complying with the court order could include prison. It's not a threat.
When the police says "if you murder you'll get arrested" it's not a threat. It's a statement of fact.
while Brazilians could access X it was "operating in Brazil". Now that it's banned, it's not operating in Brazil anymore.
The legal representative was fired, Ellon fired and closed the office in brazil. A company cant be operating without a representative in brazil.
The very concept of “Internet” disagrees.
@gandralf well, if you have a company and want to work and profit in a country you have to respect the laws of that country. Otherwise, just don't open on that place, even if it's a company on the internet, you are selling advertisements and accounts on the place. Freedom comes with responsibility, always.
Well , banned is a hard word. It has been suspended until the company complies with court rullings. People are saying that the government "banned" the social network. But government has not done so. In fact there is separation of Power and this is a legal matter.
Freedom of speech is enshrined in many countries. But all countries, including the US, have different definitions of what constitutes freedom of speech. There is no universal definition.
This is absolutely illegal in Brazil, you cannot censor media companies, people, etc, in Brazilian legislation, they are violating the law, Elon Musk is not.
A Liberdade de expressão não pode infligir os direitos humanos de outras pessoas ou o direito constitucionais das outras pessoas. O Elon Musk permitia que pessoas condenadas por crimes cibernéticos tivessem acesso as redes sociais, isto não é liberdade.
Você não pode defender a liberdade de um criminoso, porque um dia este criminoso vai defender a liberdade de matar e não ser preso, como aconteceu no Paquistão, um irmão matou sua irmã e disse que foi em prol de liberdade, e a população defendeu ele, não a irmã. Se um predador de crianças usa as redes sociais para atrair suas vítimas, esta pessoa tem direito a ter rede social? Você aprovaria que uma pedo tivesse acesso a sua filhinha? Não, né?
A Liberdade precisa ter limites para que a sociedade evolua, ou os criminosos vão pedir liberdade de cometer seus crimes e sair impune, se não você não vai saber se uma informação é falsa ou verdadeira, se não o seu diploma do ensino superior não valerá para nada, porque tudo será constatado em prol da liberdade sem limites e no fim quando você ficar doente não saberá se seu médico é formado ou não, porque a liberdade de contrata qualquer um sem qualificação será defendida. A Liberdade de parte no seu carro e fugir sem prestar socorro, a liberdade de bater em cônjuge e não ser preso, a liberdade de pegar a própria filha, a liberdade de atacar o país dos outros e pegar metade dele sem consequências, a liberdade de roubar sem ser preso. A Liberdade de perseguir se livrar de qualquer étnia que não seja supostamente pura. Então qual liberdade você quer defender? A Liberdade de ir e vir sem ser atacado na rua? de usar a rede social ser sofrer ciberbullying? Ou a liberdade que um criminoso quer usar para sair da cadeia e mandar para Deus todo mundo que fica em seu caminho?
@@jufrota8017 Não infringe, liberdade de expressão é o direito fundamental mais importante de todos, é o que te permite fazer essa defensa de censura, absurda, é o que me permite te refutar, crime virtual no Brasil é censura, falar não é crime, leia nossa Constituição, a lei mais importante do país.
@@jufrota8017 A liberdade de poder criticar o governo e não ser preso por isso.
Seus exemplos não tem nada a ver com quem foi bloqueado no Brasil e porquê.
Deputados e civis sem envolvimento com qualquer crime tiveram suas contas perseguidas e pedidos de censura.
Vai defender censura agora?
Hipócrita
@@DaniboyBR2 Falar não é crime? Depende. Se sua fala é criminosa, é crime sim. Nossa constituição não protege crimes cometidos através da fala ou da escrita.
No company can operate in our country without being in accordance to our legislation.
Remember: freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of hatred. What Musk is trying to defend is freedom of hatred.
Não, pelo contrário, as atuações desse juiz no Brasil tem sido de um ditador ( ele mandou cidadãos a 17 anos de prisão, simplesmente por se manifestar contra o atual governo, sem contar multas absurdas, congelamento de contas bancárias), este juiz quer acabar com a democracia, impedindo uma oposição de se manifestar, usando o termo "fake news"(quando é uma verdade que eles querem esconder).
Musk tem sido aplaudido pelo povo. O X tem tido adesão pelo povo do Brasil, pela atitude de Musk.
Exactly freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to commit crimes, and also, doesn't take of the responsibility that you carry for what you said with your freedom of speech. Simple as that
@@lilianl4674 onde você viu isso acontecer aqui? Explique
@@raphaelaguiar4682 Provavelmente é bot. Não vai responder.
@@RudahXimenes com certeza é bot. 🤣 escrevi para um comentário, mas veio parar nesse.
Free speech is not freedom to commit crimes.
He was banned because we have criminals in power, starting with the thieving president Lula
Elon has political and economical interests and uses the social network to reach those interests by supporting politicians in Brazil who are on his side.
The thing is, a foreigner shouldn't have such kind of impact on internal issues, so when he do that he needs to respond to it, by not having operations in Brazil the Brazilian law cannot reach him, which is illegal
So we happy he's not here anymore, because his goal there's nothing to do with free speech but with controlling the political system according with his goals even though it put the Brazilian people in risk of a coup that can lead to death and poverty
PERFECT!
Even Elon Musk still calls it "Twitter" in his tweets.
Kkk
There is an aspect that may be overlooked: Brazilian law, specifically the so-called "Marco Civil da Internet" (Law 12.965 of 2014), requires internet providers to have a representative on Brazilian soil in order to operate. By closing his office in Brazil, Elon Musk voluntarily puts himself in a position of being unable to operate, while also attempting to avoid paying debts to the Brazilian government. In fact, this last point was what enabled the enforcement of legislation affecting Starlink. In Brazil, companies in the same "de facto economic group," meaning with the same controlling entity, are jointly liable for debts owed to the state and other creditors. It is worth noting that Brazilian employees laid off by X complained that not all severance payments required by Brazilian law were fully paid, at least initially.
The democratic Brazilian government has effective means to handle claims and disagreements, which do not involve disobedience to laws or judicial decisions.
Valid point.
But there is more than freedom of speech in this squabble.
It is about land and resources grab, not to say in least a treatment towards Latin America as if we were vassals .
Notice Elon's narrative is echoed by the stallwarts of America' s corporativism ....the FCC, Peter Thiel , Bill Ackerman , the paypal mafia.
When we finally have a leadership that, for better or worse shouts loud and clear , enough is enough, these pirate crony capitists comes lambasting us for lack of freedom and threatening capital flight.
Times have not changed our standing with tne empire . The players did.
Requires too the judge justification to remove content, what the judge don't provide, only demands censorship without any process or proof.
It is funny how much people, for ignorance or pure evil, omit the details of the situation.
X is not an internet service provider, it does not qualify for this law. An internet service provider would be Starlink, Vivo, Claro, Algar Telecom etc. The orders of the minister were unlawful by brazilian constitution and internet civil act
and YOU (or Musk) are better informed about Brazilian law than the Ministers of the Supreme Court.
What is your law degree? Why aren't YOU sitting in the Supreme Court if you're so knowledgeable?
@@AlexandreLopes-qh1gyyes, he did. He said those accounts were charged of spreading misinformation and inciting violence against the Three Powers.
X is a lost cause, and the banks are left holding the bag.
In fact, it should be the beginning of realizing how harmful and powerful social networks are, the internet needs to have more control against fake profiles and content.
And who exacly will define what is fake and what is real? Because at least brazil cant be truated when we had 75 cases of fake news about the economy and "attacks against democracy" in one month at february 2024 here.
Besides companies already have system and there are bilions of users correcting others, if you dont double check thats your problem, not of anyone else.
I'm from Brazil and want to thank you for treating this in a serious manner. There's so many opinion blogs posed as journalism that is a relief watching you talking about it as news and clarifying it.
X was not banned, just blocked until they have a legal reprensative here again.
Brazil is not US backyard and freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to lie or misinform.
you keep talking about free speech first, but its literally crimes. If it is a crime then its not free speech, they are dealing with crimes, not free speech, its very different the way you guys are putting it like that. Free speech its you critiize a government and saying what is wrong and what could be done, free speech its not organizing riots to take over power and destroy the supreme court, threaten with death, destroying buildings... can you see the difference?
The judge is the criminal, demanding censorship with is against our Constitution.
Elon refuses to break the law and the jufge decide to ban X.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Spot on
That's a lie though. The majority of people being censored for criticizing the government. They use "threat to democracy" as an excuse. Just like every dictator does.
Free speech is not a crime. The people threatening violence are the left, they are allied with organized crime in Brazil. This censorship is criminal, it violates Brazilian law, read article 5 of the Brazilian Constitution, it is 100% illegal, its pure left-wing tyranny.
Freedom of speech is incredibly important but it should not cover the right to spread mis and dis information but I also understand that thats incredibly hard to define so it's so complicated ugh.
The idea that free speech needs protection is precisely because no single person or authority should dictate what counts as misinformation. If that were the case, people with power will simply ban anything that inconveniences them as misinformation.
Not really, though.
(For example)The right wingers are saying our electoral system is corrupt.
There are audits from various organs, witnessed by many people, including international representatives, before, during and after the election. Never has it been found any breach.
They make a claim that it was cheated, the judge ordered them to provide proof in 72 hours, which is within the law that they must provide. No proof is given, they are ordered to stop spreading the lie or they will face consequences.
No complications there, simply lies being spread and not backed by proof of their claims.
@@deleted01 X is being suspended, in this case, because it is a prerogative in Brazil for a company that has a high frequency of Brazilian users to have representation on Brazilian soil. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is also a very important right in Brazil. But this right is not absolute, no right is absolute in Brazilian law if this right overlaps (overrides) other rights. [sorry for my bad English]
When disinformation is proven to be what it is, a lie -- there will be consequences under Brazilian law. This was the case of the Court requiring X to remove such profiles. And in Brazil, everyone has the right to defend themselves practically forever. This was not the case with X, who could easily appeal, but he (Musk) decided to throw the shit he himself shit into the fan.
Outside the U.S., it’s not hard to understand.
Bom, não é liberdade de expressão planejar derrubar um governo democrático, não é liberdade de expressão ser racista, ser nazistas, a liberdade de expressão se limita como a liberdade em si, ela vai até a liberdade do outro. Se a sua liberdade está prejudicando alguém então você já não pode mais ser totalmente livre. No caso, as contas que precisavam ser banidas eram contas de pessoas que tentaram praticar um golpe de estado no Brasil, pedindo a volta da Ditadura Militar. Essas pessoas incitaram, planejaram, financiaram outras que invadiram no Congresso e acamparam em frente a Quartéis Militares pedindo pela volta da ditadura no Brasil. Isso é um crime e a partir do momento em que essas pessoas cometeram um crime ela sperderam seus direitos de liberdade.
Elon Mr. Free Speech will block/terminate if asked by China (Tesla factories), or Saudi/UAE (X financial backers).
He will obey the country's law. And that's why he challenged this Brazilian judge who's asking Musk to break Brazilian law.
9:40 - to the left, the judge isn't a hero, he's just applying Brazilian's rules.
We're just following our rules here. Twitter is not complying, so until it starts to comply again, and have a legal representation in Brazilian's ground, pay the tickets, etc etc, it will not operate here
Alexandre de Moraes was appointed to the Supreme Federal Court by former president Michel Temer, a right wing politician. Lula da Silva, the current president of Brazil, is left wing, so they belong to diferent political corners. Moraes is far from being a hero to the left, but he is respected as someone that is reinforcing brazilian laws.
Temer right wing
Buddy ,Temer is litterally from the MDB, a centrist party, and was apart of the PT goverment, a leftist goverment
How the hell is Temer a right-wing
And Moraes cant even be considered right-wing or left-wing when all he does is call anything that opposes whatever he says as fake news, and 85% of the time makes decisions without any support from any other power or popular approval.
Musk is the absolute worst thing to happen to Twitter.
Brazil is not a lawless place.
What do you think it means: selective prosecution?
Sure, existing laws look nice on paper, but on a whim they can be overridden with nonsense edicts from on high.
A two tier justice system is encouraged by certain religions, and kinds of politics depending on your group membership--victimhood Olympics of the oppressor versus oppressed false narrative of identity politics for the Hegelian dialectic of which Marx as a key devotee.
Not all police are moral, and if they are moral, they can be fired for not following formerly unlawful orders, now countermanded by corrupt politics.
As a Brazilian, I want to see Musk bankrupt one of these days
Amen
Maybe you want to see him denounced and arrested for corruption like the thieving president you defend! 😁
For the record Twitter was not blocked for "what can and can't be said online". It got locked because Elan fired the legal representative and foreign companies are not allowed to operate in Brazil without one
No, you're wrong. The law states that a company that operates in Brazil needs a legal representative, X doesn't operate in Brazil so it doesn't need one. The order is unlawful
#FKELNMUSK #CRAZYBREED
Lies, they are.
For the record Twitter doesn't operates in Brazil. It has no server here and now there is no office here. Just because you can access a website through the Internet it means that the website owner "operates in Brazil"? Don't play dumb on us.
@@cirosobral the people who made up that BS are the ones playing dumb, and doing so in order to manipulate actual dumb people into defending their private interests. Twitter is a corporate entity that operated in Brazil, this is a fact and not something you can refute by interpreting the word differently
LIES CAN KILL
Beazil is correct
The judge don't represent the people in Brazil and he is extremely wrong in this situation.
The majority of Brazilians support the ruling of the Supreme Court.
If a company wants to operate in Brazil it has to have a legal representation here.
Follow the law and don't get blocked
@@AlexandreLopes-qh1gy yes he does, we support him.
@@jeanmatsunaga5711 He was with the president today in the 7 of September, look the "immense" support both received, then see the massive ammount of people who don't support him in the protests.
The reality crushes your pathetic narrative.
What is the limit of free speech? Can you say whatever you want even if its deliberately a lie? Every platform MUST comply with local laws
Local laws? The ones that have been broken EVERY day by this judge? Laws are for EVERYONE, not just the ones who he demands.
local laws that are not applied over everyone in the same conditions?
@@andersontorres6557 As the X files showed, no. There was biased persecution from the right wing voters.
The question is not really about free speach. The forbidden content is criminal, it's not only disinformation, but it is the preparation of a coup.
thank you for explaining such a complicated topic so well. love from Brazil! 🇧🇷 ❤
They are completely wrong, and acording tô Brasil's supreme court should be censores. You see the problem?
Also, like in US, a company needs to have a Tax ID and a representative.
Musk decided to leave and continue to operate, which is illegal.
So wasn't only the political side... basic business decisions also.
We have laws that allow free speech in Brazil
x was banned from Brazil because it no longer has legal representatives in Brazil. This prevents any company from operating here.
In Brazil we don't call it "X". We still call it Twitter. Only media news call "X", but adding that is the old Twitter.
X is letter. I'll keep calling Twitter.
I'm glad that Musk's hate machine has been banned in my country. Musk acted like a digital terrorist
As a Braziiian, I support the Supreme Court decision. This billionaire is NOT above the law. He had to pay a bit to learn it. Bye-bye "Ex-Twitter"!
One of the reasons for the suspension of X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil is its refusal to cooperate with police investigations involving serious crimes like child pornography and accounts linked to the PCC (First Command of the Capital). The platform allegedly resisted providing information or taking action against accounts suspected of being involved in these crimes, which led to the intervention of Brazilian authorities. Social media platforms have a responsibility to cooperate in investigations of such grave matters, especially when public safety is at stake.
The X accounts whose banning was requested committed crimes disguised as political opinions. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the decision, including the judges appointed by the former president of Brazil. The Brazilian Supreme Court is independent and will enforce Brazilian law. No foreign company can operate in the country without legal representation. X was repeatedly fined for failing to comply with decisions and not paying the fines. All possibilities and leniencies were applied to avoid harming users, but there is a limit. There was no precision threat to any team; what Musk did was disrespect the Brazilian people. Here in Brazil, freedom of expression extends only to the point where personal freedom does not cause harm to others through hate crimes, verifiable lies, and interference in electoral processes. Here, you cannot say whatever you want, whether in the streets, on television, or on social media. Here, you must be responsible for your words and respect the Constitution, which makes this clear in several articles. Gentlemen... in these accounts, a coup d'état was suggested. In your countries, can you promote coups d'état? Can you promote racism? Xenophobia? Political persecution? I believe that in Spain, for example, anyone who did this would go to jail much faster, just like the separatists in Catalonia. There are no problems with other networks because they comply with Brazilian decisions and laws. Freedom of expression is not freedom to commit crimes. And no one, due to their economic status, is above the law-not politicians, not judges, not businessmen from here or another country. The only fear of jail, in a free and democratic country, is that of those who know they are guilty. Musk crossed the line by violating the court, Brazilian laws, and interfering in other people's political processes. If it fits, X will be reactivated, for sure. The world is tired of lies and rhetoric on networks without responsibility for the truth. The Brazilian press is intensely discussing the issue, with freedom, at this moment, with diverse but respectful opinions. And it will remain that way permanently in Brazil. I know Brazilians may have different opinions. But the proof that there is no persecution of anyone in Brazil is that he can challenge me here on TH-cam or in Brazil, as he wishes. Regards.
Cite just one post, just one that proves what you are saying.
The accounts were criminal. And Brazilian law obligates companies to have representatives in Brazil
A lot of misinformation. Do some research! 🤷🏻♀🤷🏻♀
This is not a case about free speech at all. It's about rule of law. Brazilian laws allows restrictions ONLY on contents, not on whole accounts. (Art. 19, Lei 12.965/2014). And even when an order is issued to remove certain content, it must be strictly specified (§ 1º and § 4º, Art. 19, Lei 12.965/2014). And last but not least, the orders cannot be secret. The user must be informed about the reasons for the takedown of their content and must be able to contradict on a due process (Art. 20, Lei 12.965/2014). All those points are not being followed by Moraes on his orders.
And for those who see all this people arguing in favor of Moraes actions, see if they can base their arguments on Brazilian laws. Some even cite "the Brazilian Constitution. But for those who are not familiar with its text, I say: anything can be defended (or attacked) based on interpretations of the Brazilian Constitution. Don't trust me, go read the text of the Constitution. Read Article 5 and all its 77 clauses and 2 paragraphs. Then go back to Articles 1 to 4 and see how the Constitution's house of cards collapses.
Finalmente um comentário sensato! E infelizmente eu tive que rolar rolar e rolar até encontrar. Estou muito chocada com as pessoas defendendo isso! Batem na tecla “ain pq o código civil exige que tenha representante legal” e esquecem de mencionar a total ilegalidade/inconstitucionalidade dos procedimentos adotados pelo Alexandre de Moraes nas suas decisões! Qual a razão de querer que esse tipo de ordem seja segredo de justiça (banimento de contas inteiras por causa de alguns posts)? Não tem motivo relevante pra isso. É total afronta à liberdade de expressão sim!!! E o uso das ferramentas do judiciário pra satisfazer interesse próprio, com a alegação de “afronta às instituições”? Determinações de investigação, ferindo o princípio da inércia?? É o STF, que DEVERIA ser o guardião da Constituição, rasgando ela e tacando fogo! O pior é ver que isso está sendo apoiado por tanta gente, socorro. 😩
@@Fernanda-mf9zj isso tem cara, cheiro e jeito de ataque orquestrado. Ainda não sei por quem. Mas, com tantas ONG com os cofres abastecidos, assim como faculdades e institutos como o Perseu Abramo, ICL, etc., que certamente tem interesse em fazer esse combate ideológico no front externo, buscando manter a hegemonia em um dos poucos pontos onde a esquerda ainda é maioria: política externa. Não bastasse o Itamaraty ser um antro esquerdista, vide o que diz o Jamil Chade em "noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/jamil-chade/2022/12/07/como-diplomatas-sabotaram-bolsonaro-de-dentro-do-itamaraty.htm", matéria que inclusive teve o título alterado para "Como diplomatas tentaram, de dentro do Itamaraty, conter atos de Bolsonaro" (caso tenha desaparecido o nome no link era "como diplomatas SABOTARAM Bolsonaro de dentro do Itamaraty"). Diversos dos jornalistas brasileiros que atuam como correspondentes para jornais internacionais (ou agências como a Reuters, AP, AFP), também são, vejam só, membros de geringonças como o Observatório da Extrema Direita (www.oedbrasil.com.br/). Mas não demora em aparecer gente por aqui para dizer que isso é "invencionice" minha, que eu estou "vendo coisa onde não existe". Eu aceito até que digam o que quiserem, desde que venham com links e referências melhores que as minhas.
Brazilian here too, you did a real good analysis, congrats!
It was not ban, it was taken to of the air as soon as they comply they will be put back on air.
Comply with illegal orders to persecute right-wing politicians, Senators, in violation of Brazilian and American law? I don't think so, they can't do that, thats a crime, the fact that Meta and all others are complying means they face prosecution by the DOJ in the future, its preferable to face Xandão than the DOJ, let me tell you. I'm Brazilian and I rather talk about Lula and Alexandre who can put me in jail than the DOJ, they can get you anywhere, put you in a bag and convict you to a million years in a stone box.
"It wasn't a ban, it was taken of air." do you hear yourself ?
@aguasnuno, Exactly.
O problema é que tem "patriota" que prefere apoiar, incondicionalmente, um homem rico, do que a LEI do próprio país.
@@marcusmv6960 vc acha essa lei justa ?
Some comments said the basics, but I think most the comments miss an example. The most important point is that supreme court was demanding a brazilian legal representative for X, and Elon Musk or his CEO refused to do that.
The consequences of not having a legal representative in Brazil for a international company is that the brazilian justice can not sue that said company or demand anything from it during court. Let's set a extreme example so which we can see why this is so important.
Imagine that someone post one nude photo of you on X, and as it is, the person who had his body expose could not sue anyone for posting the photo, and the brazilian justice could not force the X company to remove the photo. This example scenario could expand to a variety of examples, such as a false propaganda, difaming, etc.
And as said in other comments, Elon Musk's Starlink has given the ilegal miners a fast, stable and secure internet, which made things so much more dificult for the brazilian authorities to catch them. And these ilegal miners are also armed (illegaly, in Brazil we don't allow use of weapons of fire so easily like some others countries do), and they're are, literally, genociding the natives of the area to ocupy and mine the area. A big part of this operation is done on the amazon forest, totally destroying the forest to make ground for some landonwers to buy the field and use for growing cows or crops.
What is ironic is that when Elon Musk came to Brazil to promote Starlink and had a event with the ex-president, now ineligible, Bolsonaro, he (Elon Musk) said that the point of having Starlink in Brazil was to give free access to internet to the remotes schools in the amazon forest zone. Free. The project never got out of the paper. Elon also said that the Starlink satellites would help monitor the amazon forest. Crazy how this monitoration has gone, hum? If Brazilian justice could have access to the Starlinks payement book's and who has contract them and where, they could really be of help catching the criminals that are massacrating the indigenous natives of Brazil.
So the supreme court froze the access to the payement of Starlinks bills, to force Elon Musk to abide Brazil's laws and have a legal representative there.
In response to this, Starlink has mailed every contractor difaming the supreme court and said that they will be, if necessary, keeping the service for free, painting them in white and gold and the good guys, and the supreme court lider, Alexandre de Moraes, as a bad guys. This whole saga has a extreme political angle, in which now they're trying to impeach Alexandre.
In summary, Alexandre has demmanded to X to have a legal representative. X said no, we don't answer to you. You have no power over us. Then, with months of negociating to try and have a legal representative, X was suspended and Starlink banks accounts was frozen, basically.
But, there is more to the story. There has been several ocassions on which X has abode the local governt laws, as Elon Musk himselft said here th-cam.com/users/shortsE8RJsrjtmfs
So, why they would not abide to this simple law for Brazil?
The thing here is that Musk thinks that his money is more relevant than Brazilian law in our own country. Everything the judge decided is according to our law.
The free speech thing, Elon is considering American law. In Brazil there's no such a thing as absolute feeedom of speech because that allows hate speech, which is dangerous and not allowed in Brazil.
And another important thing to consider is the fact that every single foreign company that desires to have business in Brazil must have legal representation in our country. Elon removed his office from Brazil to avoid legal notifications and responsibilities.
The judge made only what our law demands.
Just go to what is left from brazilian users and you'll see every kind of absurd being said there by brazilians, even nazi stuff is spreading fast there.
Brazil did not lose anything without Twitter. We went to Blue Sky, a social media with regulations and is monitored to prevent hate and and other harmful things. We don't need that.
Yeah Bluesky is so much better
We went to Threads too.
Hi. Brazil here. Spot on!
Good coverage 🌟 Thank you 🙏🏼
How does a video so good have so little views?? Very well summed up, good work!
Todo mundo tá ficando louco
Excellent work explaining this! You both nailed it!
I would like to add that X/Twitter was served (I hope this is the correct term) 10 days before the final communication, which happened on the X profile itself. The representative lawyer who had worked for X then informed the justice system that she was no longer the representative. So, Elon had more than 10 days during which he could have appointed another representative.
🇧🇷 Brazil, against the abuses of the billionaire, hypocrite
manipulator.
Bravo!! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Btw, I really liked your english, so clean. Very easy to understand :)
Forgot to mention that X closed its office in Brazil so it wouldn't be fined and that in itself is ilegal in Brazil. Every foreign company must have representation in Brazil to operate. This is not political, it's the law.
True. But what you don't say here is that he was forced to close his office because the Supreme Court's criminal organization was threatening them for not complying with illegal orders that do not constitute due process in Brazil. Stupidity or villainy? Choose one.
You may be right, but it's hard to acuse the supreme court of stupidity when your golden boy Elon is the one who decided to give it the middle finger instead of defending his interests in court like "normal" people. It seems pathological that people of his kind believe they are above the law even more in places they see as Banana Republics. Unfortunately, Australia didn't have the apetite to go beyond the hot air and defy the US's media dominance, because in the end, that's what it comes down to. TIC TOK not American = evil. X American = Holy. @@TheTabusu
@@TheTabusuYou may be right, but it's hard to defend your golden boy Elon when he just gives the middle finger to the court instead of defending himself like "normal" people. His kind belive they are above the law, and many times they are. Unfortunately, Australia didn't have the apetite to go beyond the hot air to defy the US media dominance, because in the end that's what it's all about. TIK TOK is fully compliant, but not American so it's evil and should be banned. X disrespects every court ruling, so it's the holy institution of free speech.
@@TheTabusu You may be right, but it's hard to defend the golden boy Elon when he just gives the middle finger to the court instead of defending himself like "normal" people. His kind belive they are above the law, and many times they are. Unfortunately, Australia didn't have the apetite to go beyond the hot air to defy the US media dominance, because in the end that's what it's all about. TIK TOK is fully compliant, but not American so it's evil and should be banned. X disrespects every court ruling, so it's the holy institution of free speech.
@@TheTabusu You may be right, but it's hard to defend the golden boy Elon when he just gives the middle finger to the court instead of defending himself like "normal" people. His kind belive they are above the law, and many times they are. Unfortunately, Australia didn't have the apetite to go beyond the hot air to defy the US media dominance, because in the end that's what it's all about. TIK TOK is fully compliant, but not American so it's evil and should be banned. X disrespects every court ruling, so it's the holy institution of free speech.
By 5:27 : "supreme court ordered suspension of the company/service for not complying with court orders".
As mentioned shortly after, this is ONE of the reasons, another being the fact that Musk, disliking court sentences, decided to close and withdraw legal representation in the country, but a representation is demanded by the law, otherwise the company would just go "rogue" (without anyone or anything to ever legally respond for it in its behalf). The claims of threatening with arrest are bullshit.
In short, he decided to go full outlaws, just like that. Where in this world does a company or service operate like that? The local law finally banning its activities should not come as a surprise at all. It actually took a very generous long for it to happen.
It is not fot free speech. He comply with removal orders from countries more aligned with his political views. He just thinks that he is the law
He complies with the countries' laws, that's why he was not able do censor profiles as it is illegal in Brazil
Exactly !!
He is in all fours licking Israeli boots
That’s all a n attempt for measuring forces .. he was going to buy a huge lithium reserve in Brazil and the actual government blocked the deal , most likely because it wants its share in the profits
@@surijosuperbaby Source? As far as I know Brazil has no such thing as huge lithium reserves
Brazilian's law allow to remove content from internet, but it does not allow to block people profiles on any platform. The order to block someone was illegal. Elon was just following the law when not complying with illegal orders.
A greatly clear approach!
I'm Brazilian and it's the end of Brazilian democracy. We need help
Just to clarify, Alexandre de Moraes is not even remotely a hero for the left in Brasil.
Here, when there is a vacancy on the STF, the President of the Republic appoints a candidate for the position. This appointment must be made from among jurists of notable legal knowledge and impeccable reputation, as stipulated by the Constitution. In his case, he was appointed by former President Michel Temer, who, in turn, was from the right - and to sum up, was a rather controversial president during his term.
Nevertheless, that said, Alexandre is receiving a lot of support for his decision regarding Twitter. No one could tolerate the chaos that this social network was causing in the country.
No one could stand the sick show of the Bolsonaro supporters. The only people who are complaining and shouting dictatorship are people who participated in January 8th or prefer to remain hidden because they were involved. Musk is a Trump supporter, who has shown himself to be more favorable to Putin, as when Putin interfered in the 2016 elections. Musk is a Trump supporter, a jackal of the radical right and American demagogue crystallized in the form of MAGA, which includes groups like Qnon and other lunatics who attacked Washington DC shouting "hang Pence" incited by Trump. The same thing happened in Brazil, in the capital Brasília, encouraged by Bolsonaro and other right-wing figures, they claimed that there had been fraud, without proof, just like Trump in the USA, and even tried to enlist the military in an attempt to annul the elections, trying to cause political and social instability. There were lunatics camped in front of military bases and calling on their occupants to take up arms and dissolve the judiciary and legislative branches. Does it seem reasonable to allow these people to go unanswered or to continue committing acts of treason and insurrection through digital platforms?
Temer wasn't from the right, he's from the center (centrão). And while Alexandre isn't exactly a leftist, the left has been cheering for him for 4 years now.
This is the third coment that called Temer right-wing
He isint right-wing
He is of the MDB, a centrist partý that was apart of the PT goverment brign the vice-president of Dilma, candidate of the workers party.
In Brazil far right profiles began mass post inciting school attacks and mass murders, the way happens at USA. In this case the ministry called an audience with x representatives for banning these posts. The representatives refused of course with allegations of violation of terms.
th-cam.com/video/jXl6l8TkImE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=z-sl77uAhL2U0Fw1 a sorry to post the link but this is to clarify the situation, 1 year ago
The reason it was banned wasnt even that lol, the posts were constantly restricted from mass viewing, specifically 16- accounts, and were in general insignificant in ammount, X is simply beign banned because people use to screw over the goverment, if it really was aboút offices and posts
Discord
Bluesky etc
Would be blocked, which they arent lol besides the goverment had 75 cases of fake news by february, whereas X had 45 (on the BR community) at the same month, who has less credibility exacly?
After overwhelming notifications, procedural communications, X(old twitter) refused to obey the judicial orders, to stablish a national representation, also important for national prosecution if needed, regarding user rights, for example. Free Speech is also in Brazilian Constitution, article 5, however the rule of law has it's own idiossincrasies and due process of law.
The problem with X is related to corporation registry, regarding being foreign company, a regular politics around the world.
Brazil has laws and they need compliance. To enforce them is a duty.
It wasn’t “banned” because of free speech, it was because of the lack os legal representatives. Basically, if ANY company wants to operate in Brazil the law requires them to have local legal representation. When Elon fired his, the court said he wasn’t complying with the most basic requirement to operate in the country. It’s not actually banned, it’s suspended. If he appointed a new legal representative, it would be made available again.
But I guess Australia is now dealing with his juvenile behavior as well. Don’t say we didn’t warn you…
X should respect brazilian laws
For those that don’t know the Brazilian constitution, be aware that this isn’t a political fight of far-right versus left. While in the USA free speech is above everything, in Brazil, Democracy is the one that always must be respected according to the constitution. So, of course, there is free speech in Brazil but there are some exceptions as when someone uses the right of free speech to try to kill the democracy, spreading disinformation and organizing violent riots against it. For example, when people do not accept the result of the very transparent, secure, and followed by international organizations 2022 elections. So, dumb billionaires should inform themselves about the laws of foreign countries where they want to make money.
Elon Musk decision over whether to defend free speech or local laws changes very much, according to various videos of him all over internet.
Our Constitution also enshrines the right to information, alognside with the right of free speech. Therefore, spreading false information is a violation against our law.
⚠⚠⚠⚠In Brazil Free Speech is a Constitutionally Enshrined Right! ⚠⚠⚠⚠
But in Brazil, unlike the USA, Free Speech is not the same as free aggression. Its limits are determined by principles such as respect for human dignity, non-incitement to violence, non-defamation, respect for privacy, honor and in the image of people.
So you may express yourself, but you CANNOT hurt other people.
We never called it X and never will. It's just stupid
Hey you two, good job. Subbed 👍
Tell Elon to say what he had said about Brazil and his law ministers, but with China. Tell China that they don't have free speech. ... waiting.
As you can read in the comments section, there's ah couple disinformation on this episode. Sounds like you got information from some Brazilian fox news. So I recommend you to take it out to not be responsible for more misinformation.
Wrong, all actions by the Supreme in Brazil are in violation of the highest law in Brazil, the Brazilian Constitution, Article 5. All persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever, Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country being ensured of inviolability of the right to life, to liberty, to equality, to security and to property, on the following terms:
I - men and women have equal rights and duties under the terms of this Constitution;
II - no one shall be obliged to do or refrain from doing something except by virtue of law;
III - no one shall be submitted to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment;
IV - the expression of thought is free, and anonymity is forbidden;
V - the right of reply is ensured, in proportion to the offense, as well as compensation for property or moral damages or for damages to the image;
VI - freedom of conscience and of belief is inviolable, the free exercise of religious cults being ensured and, under the terms of the law, the protection of places of worship and their rites being guaranteed;
VII - under the terms of the law, the rendering of religious assistance in civil and military establishments of collective confinement is ensured;
VIII - no one shall be deprived of any rights by reason of religious belief or philosophical or political conviction, unless he invokes it to exempt himself from a legal obligation required of all and refuses to perform an alternative obligation established by law;
IX - the expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communications activities is free, independently of censorship or license;
X - the privacy, private life, honour and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for property or moral damages resulting from their violation is ensured;
XI - the home is the inviolable refuge of the individual, and no one may enter therein without the consent of the dweller, except in the event of flagrante delicto or disaster, or to give help, or, during the day, by court order;
XII - the secrecy of correspondence and of telegraphic, data and telephone communications is inviolable, except, in the latter case, by court order, in the cases and in the manner prescribed by law for the purposes of criminal investigation or criminal procedural finding of facts;
XIII - the practice of any work, trade or profession is free, observing the professional qualifications which the law shall establish;
XIV - access to information is ensured to everyone and the confidentiality of the source shall be safeguarded, whenever necessary to the professional activity;
XV - locomotion within the national territory is free in time of peace, and any person may, under the terms of the law, enter it, remain therein or leave it with his assets;
XVI - all persons may hold peaceful meetings, without weapons, in places open to the public, regardless of authorization provided that they do not frustrate another meeting previously called for the same place, subject only to prior notice to the competent authority;
XVII - freedom of association for lawful purposes is fully guaranteed, any paramilitary association being forbidden;
XVIII - the creation of associations and, under the terms of the law, that of cooperatives is not subject to authorization, and State interference in their operation is forbidden;
XIX - associations may only be compulsorily dissolved or have their activities suspended by a judicial decision, and a final and unappealable decision is required in the first case;
XX - no one shall be compelled to become associated or to remain associated;
XXI - when expressly authorized, associations shall have the legitimacy to represent their members either judicially or extrajudicially;
XXII - the right of property is guaranteed;
@@DaniboyBR2 Wrong.
@@Rogerio-Rodrigues Oh so the Brazilian Constitution is wrong but your communist criminal idols are right?
@@DaniboyBR2as a Brazilian lawyer, this isn’t even remotely correct.
The Brazilian Supreme Court ruling was not about what can be or not be said in social Media. It was requested that X appointed a legal representative in Brasil and a previous ruling requested suspension users' accounts which were related to crimes. Mr. Musk refused to comply with both. You can say whatever you want in and out of social media, but if what you say violates laws, you are held accountable. Simple like that. Apparently, Musk's understanding is that the USA legislation appy in Brazil. Arrogant and ignorant to the same extent.
You need tô have a legal representante of X in Brasil. MUSK dont do It for NOT receive intimations AND other legal things.
Elon is a ridiculous childish billionaire! Freedom of speech should not allow people to spread hate speech and misinformation… well done, Brazil! These tech guys have to be hold accountable.
Tribal behavior has hacked us. Both are clearly and deeply wrong (authoritarian justice vs billionaire manipulator asshole), but almost everyone is divided into two blind, resentful tribes.
More than authoritarian justice or billionaire manipulators, my main concern rests at our increasingly stupidity.
If I make a comment here that is quite compelling about toxic ideologies, it gets censored by AI that is uplifting human misery by supporting such ideologies.
The earth X ban by thin bald eyes, a.k.a. Chan Don 😈😈😈
Love it!!!
Musk is just pathetic
You'll have “FREE SPEECH” if I agree with what you have to say. Musk openly censors words like “cisgender” on Twitter simply because he doesn't like the concept. It would help if you addressed the censorship on the platform as well.
I am Brazilian and I have my criticisms of the Brazilian Judiciary, but Minister Alexandre de Moraes is right! We cannot allow the financial interests of an United Statian billionaire to affect Brazilian sovereignty. This nonsense about "American Free Speech" used by this unscrupulous billionaire is a subterfuge for the shady interests he has in Brazilian lithium. If he (Musk) does not have a far-right government in place in Brazil, things would be difficult for him to exploit the mineral for his incompetent Tesla car company, since it is common knowledge that right-wing governments (especially far-right ones) are sell-out governments and tend to favor foreign businessmen instead of fostering national entrepreneurship. This United Statian has to understand that the Brazilian Constitution is not based on the United State First Amendment and that United Statian legislation should ONLY be applied in the United States. Brazilian legislation on freedom (including free speech, specifically speaking) is very different from US legislation, but the spoiled billionaire does not accept this and wants to force a imperialist interference in another country to satisfy his unbridled greed. Furthermore, Elon Musk deliberately damaged a social network to try to achieve his shady goals, but none of this would have happened if people like him were prevented from accumulating so much power. Elon Musk needs to be placed under a guardianship to prevent him from taking such deplorable actions. There is a lot of money and a lot of power in the hands of this psychologically unbalanced person with serious self-esteem issues like him.
It was an illegal order send by ONE judge. (Who was LULA's party lawyer and is on the supreme court by LULA's choice as president. Also, was this very judge who take LULA out of prision)
X was banned in BR because X refused to pay fees for not complying to shut certain insurrectionists accounts, and not having a legal representation inside the country. Fees payed, representation standing, the blockade would be lifted. This is how it is theoretically.
Liar, they are moderate right-wingers expressing their opinions, criticizing the supreme court in Brazil, one of these accounts if of a Senator of Brazil, Marcos do Val, his account is still up, I can list all the people that were censored, they were criticizing the tyranny of the Supreme court in Brazil that are violating the law to persecute the right-wing. Just go look up his profile, he's not an extremist at all.
Funny that Musk didn't complain about taking down accounts for truly autocratic governments, such as the Turkish government. It seems he only clashes with democracies, while he's quite compliant with dictatorships.
Not funny, this is the law in these countries, the law in Brazil is free speech, the censorship required by the tyrant judges is ILLEGAL in Brazil, in the US, and violates basic human rights accords. Elon Musk would be liable for indictment if they agreed to censor people illegally like he was ordered to.
In Brazil preemptive censorship is forbidden by law, the law that rules social media here is clear: only contents can be asked to be removed, and those contenta must be infringing some law. Also, congressmen have legal immunity over this law, so they cannot be a target of these removals. The order was unlawful because it demanded both the removal of entire profiles and it also targeted congressmen accounts. X cannot commit crimes in foreign countries per US laws, so it could not comply with the illegal orders.
You should learn the difference between freedom of speech and freedom to commit crimes. Elon is the champion of freedom to commit crimes.
No, it is a new start, stronger than ever!
The thing is that Alexandre de Moraes's orders are clearly against the Brazilian Constitution and censorship. That is the point. Strange how many people fail to point that out, or even don't think it's something to be concerned about.
The main reason for the Block in Brazil is that Brazilian law requires that any company offering services inside the Federation must have a legal representation locally. By being a spoiled child and closing the office, Musk gave the Brazilian supreme court all it needed to finally shut it down due to this very basic legal requirement. Twitters undoing is completely sole responsibility of Elon Musk and it's horrible managing of the company
Lie, there isnt this law. STF creat this bye Air.
All he wants is the Brazilian LITHIUM reserves , that he thought he had garanteed, But it seems that the actual government wants a share in tbe negotiations ..
That’s it
He is all about money and profit ..
They are measuring forces ..
Para de se meter no meu país
The next thing is will be making iPhone and Samsung responsible for things said and done on their on phones they manufacture.
Elon is basically the most popular entitled rich brat of this generation.
There is freedom of expression in Brazil. However, as I believe in many other countries, you are responsible for what you say. And there may be consequences. You can speak, but you cannot commit crimes with your speech. How to be racist, or how to spread misinformation that can lead to serious consequences for the population. So you are free to do what you want with yourself, but not with others, that's what the law is for. And to the extent that your statements affect those who listen or read, obviously the law must be obeyed. But if you're not going to harm anyone with your opinions, offend lightly, speak untruths, go ahead.