Moraes is on the Brazilian STF, the highest court in the land. In other countries, this kind of stuff would go through multiple lower courts. Here, the head guy is just giving direct orders and answers to approximately no one.
So it's the orders of one judge acting as judge, jury & executioner, which is not how we normally think of lawful process.
Now that is the Brazilian system but... there's a damn good reason other people don't do it that way. And a damn good reason that dystopian book was named "Brazil."
Kim Jong Un’s title is Supreme Leader, General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, Chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea, President of the State Affairs of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Are you suggesting that he is also a member of the Brazilian supreme court?
> Are you suggesting that he is also a member of the Brazilian supreme court?
I never suggested that.
He is member of Korean institutions defined by Korean constitution, similarly how this judge is of a Brazilian Institution. Neither means there titles bear any similarity to what they are doing or what power they are exercising.
Your reasoning is that if we look at the history of North Korea we will see that it has been a dictatorship since its inception, and similarly if we look at the history of Brazil we will plainly that it has not in fact ever been a republic and this is evidenced by the fact that Twitter is blocked?
I do not understand the impulse to evoke a completely unrelated thing to try to make a conceptual argument against a fact that you do not even attempt to directly refute. Brazil does not have a monarch. If you believe that Brazil is a monarchy, I encourage you to expand on what you think a monarch is both in terms of power and historical context.
Yes, and? Doesn't mean that anyone who could avoid it should feel compelled to accept that when this is done by an arbitrary and corrupt government.
Also I'm not sure it's very common for courts to arrest lawyers (and basically use them as hostages) because of their clients actions in most countries.
> Doesn't mean that anyone who could avoid it should feel compelled to accept that
Courts can literally compel you to comply with court orders in virtually every country, unless of course as you have pointed out, you have the means to avoid being compelled.
The “… when this is done by an arbitrary and corrupt government” sentiment has no real meaning here as you have pointed out that Musk can avoid being compelled either way.
Nobody has been talking about arresting Musk himself, rather employees or representatives of Twitter who are required to be present in Brazil just for this specific reason (i.e. so that they could be arrested and used as bargaining chips to force the foreign company to do whatever the government/("independent") judiciary wants.
Also I really don't understand your overall point.
My overall point is that there is little indication that this is some battle between good and evil or right and wrong.
This is about a guy who faces no personal consequences whatsoever choosing to ignore court orders and a government penalizing his business for that choice. There is some speculation that maybe the judge is acting illegally but I haven’t seen anyone familiar with Brazilian constitutional law say that. There is also speculation that the judge is acting unethically, though the only “ethical” alternative offered is “let Elon Musk do whatever he wants”, which is less of an argument about ethics and more of a statement of what fandom a person subscribes to.
If the judge is acting illegally I sure hope the citizens of Brazil address that. If he’s simply pissing off a rich libertarian that’s popular on his own website then I hope he continues to do so.
> My overall point is that there is little indication that this is some battle between good and evil or right and wrong.
I wouldn't necessarily use words like 'good' and 'evil' here but the fact that a judge can (arbitrarily) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system. Genuinely curious how can someone defend something like that?
> “let Elon Musk do whatever he wants”, which is less of an argument about ethics and more of a statement of what fandom a person subscribes to.
I assure you I don't really care for Musk or most of the things he does and (especially) says. That's entirely besides the point.
even if it complies with Brazilian laws why would that matter at all? North Korea and Russia and all similar countries also have "laws"...
> If he’s simply pissing off a rich libertarian that’s popular
So a government censoring it's political opponents is fine as long as they are using a platform owned by a rich "libertarian" jerk? The implication being that no platform/social network can be trustworthy and ethical unless it cooperates with (semi)authoritarian governments?
> judge can (arbitrarily) impose a fairly large fine on any individual using a specific foreign website says everything I need to know about that country and its judicial system
This is where you are inserting “arbitrarily” as both a statement of fact and moral wrongness.
Every single court in every single country has the ability to issue court orders on businesses that operate in that country. It is true in the US, China, the UK, North Korea, France, Australia, Myanmar, Spain, etc.
Name a country! That country has judges that can do things that you do not like. Even things regarding your personal definition of acceptable limitations on freedoms, speech included. And it can seem arbitrary to you.
Your issue is not with Brazil’s court, your issue is with courts in general. Except for…
> I assure you I don't really care for Musk or most of the things he does and (especially) says. That's entirely besides the point.
This is a thread about Twitter being blocked. Is there an any other action taken by the Brazilian supreme court that you have an issue with? If not, this is not a concern about the Brazilian constitution, this is a petulant billionaire screaming “dictator!” loud enough from his soapbox that even people that aren’t in his regular retinue of credulous followers fall for it.
> So a government censoring it's political opponents is fine as long as they are using a platform owned by a rich "libertarian" jerk?
If the judge is following the law, and his only actual sin is pissing off some crybaby libertarian for having to comply with the law, then the judge has committed no sin at all.
Anyway all of that aside, all of this actually stems from Elon Musk refusing to comply with an investigation and court orders around an actual attempted coup in that country. Musk’s credulous supporters will either say “that’s not true because Elon posted that it’s about something else” or “actually the coup should have happened because Musk said the current government is bad and we should support undemocratic government overthrows because Elon says they are good”
His side of this is literally nonsense. It is defended by unserious people.
Not all laws are equal, just like not all countries and courts are. Some are more authoritarian and arbitrary than others and therefore inherently less legitimate.
> His side of this is literally nonsense
> actual sin is pissing off some crybaby libertarian for having to comply with the law
Musk is a jerk, I get it and fully agree with that. How is this relevant, though?
Also you really have no issue with the attempted VPN ban and fines for individual who are using Twitter? Or a legal system that could allow something like that? Really?
I see that you saw “crybaby libertarian” and felt compelled to comment on it but did not read “coup” and feel the same way.
“I see you said a mean thing, mayhaps you did not write anything else before or after that” is not a correct way to point out an ad hominem fallacy.
Which of the following statements would you agree with most?
A. This whole thing is not about the events of January 8th
B. The events of January 8th were good, actually. They should be repeated until the current government is forcibly overthrown and someone sympathetic to Bolsonaro is installed.
C. I do not care about the events of January 8th. My concept of freedom of speech covers incitement to violence, a right that does not exist in any country.
