It's very easy to get, Modi aligns with right-wing politics whilst Lula in Brazil is left-leaning and directly opposes Bolsonaro who is a friend of Musk.
Brazil has an extradition treaty with the United States, so theoretically this could escalate quite far [1]. I’m not seeing much commentary on practical limits, though—worst case is X is blocked in Brazil, right?
The extradition treaty with Brazil only applies "if the offense(s) committed are considered crimes by both countries"[0]. That is almost certainly not the case here.
The "obstruction" is simply disobeying the court order to block certain accounts, right? It's hard to imagine that disobeying a Brazillian court order could be considered a crime in the US when the underlying court order is one that a US court could never issue.
To be clear, I don’t think extradition is on the table; there are no Article II crimes that remotely fit the bill [1]. It would be interesting if Musk can simply ignore Brazil’s high court without actual penalty.
Their court orders are several times more tyrannical than even US national security letters and gag orders. And they've become the court's standard operating procedure. Would be fun to watch an american lawyer or judge comment on the matter.
If a US citizen ever gets extradited to Brazil of all places just because some power tripping judge demands it, it means the world is too far gone already and we might as well try to start over from scratch in Mars or something. Actual brazilian citizens fled this country to the US because of this judge's persecution and the US granted them asylum. I can't even imagine a universe where they'd ship one of their own to be judged by this glorified kangaroo court. Seeing people even entertain that possibility feels surreal to me.
> worst case is X is blocked in Brazil, right?
Yes. The latest news here is Anatel (brazilian FCC) is just waiting for the judge's order. They'll probably just tell the ISPs to block Twitter at the DNS level. Brazil has not reached China's level yet.
This inquiry was originally opened in 2019 to investigate “fake news” and “digital militias”, and it is illegal.
- In Brazil, a judge cannot open an inquiry. This falls under the responsibility of the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público) or the judiciary police. Yet, Inquiry 4874 was opened by the Supreme Court.
- You can’t simultaneously be the victim, judge and prosecutor in a case. Still, this is the situation in Inquiry 4874, where a Supreme Court justice prosecutes and judges supposed crimes committed against the Supreme Court.
- Defense attorneys must be given full access to case files. This has not happened in Inquiry 4874.
- The Brazilian attorney general in 2019 has determined the inquiry to be abandoned due to it being unconstitutional. While the Brazilian constitution says that the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público) conducts investigations and determines their end, this determination was ignored by the Supreme Court.
- The inquiry violates the Supreme Court’s own internal regiment. That regiment, which was created in 1969, says that the Supreme Court can open inquiries for crimes committed “within its premises”. This was superseded by the 1988 constitution, which transfers the investigatory function to the judiciary police and the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público). Still, even if you ignore that and go by what the internal regiment says, clearly the facts under investigation by Inquiry 4874 have not happened within the premises of the Supreme Court. To justify that, its justices have extended de definition of what consists the premises the Supreme Court to be the whole Brazilian territory, with the argument that crimes committed on the internet have a “diffuse character”.
- Inquiry 4874 does not investigate any specific fact. It was opened to investigate “fake news, slanderous denunciations and infractions covered by animus calumniandi, diffamandi e injuriandi affecting the honor and security of the Supreme Court, its members and their families”. No act or crime is specified, so the inquiry is a wildcard that can be (and is) used against anyone who is considered an enemy of the court.
- The Brazilian constitution specifies that the Supreme Court can only judge those with “privileged jurisdiction” (the president, vice-president, cabinet members, senators, congressmen, etc). However, Inquiry 4879 has judged and convicted many people who do not fall under that special jurisdiction.
- In Brazil you cannot choose a judge according to your preferences. In the Supreme Court, one must be selected at random, according to the court’s internal regiment. This has not happened in Inquiry 4879, as justice Dias Toffoli specifically chose justice Alexandre de Moraes to handle the investigation.
The irregularities above have turned the Brazilian Supreme Court into a kangaroo court.
You told a lot of fake things, so I'll just point out the first obvious thing:
> In Brazil, a judge cannot open an inquiry.
That's false. You can open an inquiry, if is an attack against the Supreme Court itself.
Article 43. In the event of a criminal offense at the headquarters or branch of the Court, the President shall initiate an inquiry if it involves an authority or person subject to its jurisdiction, or delegate this task to another Minister.
You should work on your reading comprehension. I will quote myself:
> - The inquiry violates the Supreme Court’s own internal regiment. That regiment, which was created in 1969, says that the Supreme Court can open inquiries for crimes committed “within its premises”. This was superseded by the 1988 constitution, which transfers the investigatory function to the judiciary police and the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público). Still, even if you ignore that and go by what the internal regiment says, clearly the facts under investigation by Inquiry 4874 have not happened within the premises of the Supreme Court. To justify that, its justices have extended de definition of what consists the premises the Supreme Court to be the whole Brazilian territory, with the argument that crimes committed on the internet have a “diffuse character”.
Does “the headquarters or branch of the Court” include X?
"the headquarters or branch of the Court" happens when someone attacks the Supreme Court, especially as what happened in January 8 when they destroyed the place trying on a coup attempt.
The Inquiry was opened in 2019. It cannot have anything to do with January 8th because it precedes it.
Were the congressmen and journalists who have been censored in the headquarters of the Supreme Court? Are people who criticize the actions of an out of control judge within the premises of the Supreme Court? Has Elon Musk ever been in the Brazilian Supreme Court?
The Brazilian Supreme Court maintains that the whole internet is within their premises. Be honest, do you think this is reasonable?
The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as a attack to the court. That the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet.
The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law.
> The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as an attack to the court.
What the heck is a “virtual attack”?
Your statement is basically the same as “the Supreme Court gave itself power to go after whoever they want”. Do you think this is healthy in a democracy?
> the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet.
Yes, it is so old that the newer 1988 constitution should be observed instead, and it says investigations must be started by the Federal Prosecution Service.
Instead they decided to reinterpret the very clear wording of the regiment (“within the premises of the Supreme Court”) to mean something completely different (“whatever happens on the internet”). Again, do you think this is healthy in a democracy?
> The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law.
In other words, “they make their own rules”? No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work. The Supreme Court does not have the right to override the constitution.
Interpreting is one thing, inventing new meanings completely removed from the written words is completely different. Otherwise they would be free to legislate, but they are not the legislative power.
The Brazilian Supreme Court Justice that Musk criticized has been granted unilateral power to order material censored and accounts removed from online platforms, without a trial.
X says that it wasn't even told what their offenses were, and was ordered not to disclose which accounts were ordered closed:
`X Corp. has been forced by court decisions to block certain popular accounts in Brazil. We have informed those accounts that we have taken this action.
We do not know the reasons these blocking orders have been issued.
We do not know which posts are alleged to violate the law.
We are prohibited from saying which court or judge issued the order, or on what grounds.
We are prohibited from saying which accounts are impacted.
We are threatened with daily fines if we fail to comply.
We believe that such orders are not in accordance with the Marco Civil da Internet or the Brazilian Federal Constitution, and we challenge the orders legally where possible.
The people of Brazil, regardless of their political beliefs, are entitled to freedom of speech, due process, and transparency from their own authorities.
—--
A X Corp. foi forçada por decisões judiciais a bloquear determinadas contas populares no Brasil. Informamos a essas contas que tomamos tais medidas.
Não sabemos os motivos pelos quais essas ordens de bloqueio foram emitidas.
Não sabemos quais postagens supostamente violaram a lei.
Estamos proibidos de informar qual tribunal ou juiz emitiu a ordem, ou em qual contexto.
Estamos proibidos de informar quais contas foram afetadas.
Somos ameaçados com multas diárias se não cumprirmos a ordem.
Não acreditamos que tais ordens estejam de acordo com o Marco Civil da Internet ou com a Constituição Federal do Brasil e contestaremos legalmente as ordens no que for possível.
O povo brasileiro, independentemente de suas crenças políticas, têm direito à liberdade de expressão, ao devido processo legal e à transparência por parte de suas próprias autoridades.`
Presumeably some of these blocked accounts are ones that Musk has reactivated and|or fresh accounts that have recently been ordered blocked that Musk has promised to reactivate.
There are several reports includin this HN linked one from Reuters and the full story isn't entirely clear to me.
The reason for the accounts to get banned changes depending on the account.
But most of them is related to 1. Attack to Supreme Court justices (some of them even threatened Justices life) and 2. misinformation's about the voting system.
It started in 2019 or so. If I remember correctly, some magazine ran a damning article on some supreme court judge. In response to that, the court gave itself essentially limitless powers to unilaterally censor, investigate and punish anyone they want. In essence they are the victims, the investigators, the judges, the jurors and the executioners now. They claim it's to combat "fake news". They decide what's true, of course.
It reached comical proportions in the 2022 elections. I submitted news of that here as it was happening.
These judges censored the candidate they didn't want to win. Says on the constitution that censorship is illegal, especially that of a political nature. Yet political censorship is exactly what they did. Hell they bragged about it. They went to public events to showboat about how they defeated him. I have the videos.
The current president is a communist and a socialist. He calls himself a socialist, I have videos of him saying it. They deemed it "fake news" to accuse him of it, and censored anyone who did say it. The current president is friends with the Venezuelan dictator, but it became "fake news" to say he was. He was arrested and convicted for the biggest corruption scandal of this country, I watched him give himself up on live television. They just threw out the entire case over a jurisdiction technicality so ackshually he's innocent and it's "fake news" to say he's a corrupt criminal. And so on. And so forth. Anything that made him look bad was "fake news". Until the right wing president lost in the elections by voting machines. By some silly narrow margin.
Twitter accounts were frequently censored during this time period. They would even censor politicians which theoretically have immunity precisely so they could not be censored in this manner. They're still getting censored but much less frequently now. After all, election's already over.
After the elections, people got fed up and protested it. Over a thousand people were arrested. Normal people, elderly people. They were literally clothed with the brazilian flag. They made some kind of makeshift concentration camp in Brasília and put them all in there. Then they started dispensing 20+ year sentences like candy to these political prisoners. I've seen actual murderers get less time here. Some of those people actually died in that shithole.
Government took full advantage of it, called it a coup attempt and started persecuting the brazilian right. Banned the former president from politics over what was essentially wrongthink. It's only a matter of time before they order his arrest. All while they nullify the sentences of former government officials convicted for corruption and release drug traffickers from prison. They even give them their drug money back.
It's 2024 and the "fake news" inquisition is still ongoing. It's scope has apparently expanded to be nearly unlimited. They're basically judge-kings now. This is not a democracy. They did not receive a single vote from anyone and yet they rule. What is a people supposed to do when the supreme court seizes power like this? I watched my countrymen literally beg on their knees for the military to save them. The military heroically arrested them.
Sometimes I wonder if dang's gonna get a letter from one of these guys one day over my comments.
Indian goverment asked twitter to remove links to a BBC documentary that made Modi look bad and they immediately complied.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/25/india-ban-on-b...
Brazilian goverment is closing accounts that (presumably) tried to overthrow the goverment and that's where he draws the line??
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_atta...