Not exactly. X had a local representative who was threatened by this judge issuing illegal censorship orders. It’s not that they refused to appoint a representative but that they had to get rid of all their employees and legal representation in Brazil because the judge was going after them as individuals, making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech.
The root of the issue is that Alexandre de Moraes, a single justice on the Supreme Court, has been issuing secret orders to censor content, ban accounts, and jail people over political speech. This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries.
Also the “Musk refused” part isn’t accurate. Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X.
Nope Im Brazilian. And all of this started way before. These orders were not imbalanced -- the blocking of X accounts -- (Ok VPN now is). Musk after several court decisions decided to not comply, even after all involved received due process. It's not, in the slightest, censorship at all. What really happened was violation of ellection rules on daily basis, specially on X but many other social also were fined. META, Tik Tok also had to remove content by court decision and they did comply it. Alexandre de Moraes at election's time was the judge of our TSE -- a branch of supreme court which deals specifically with the electoral process. Many of these accounts participated in January 8, including promoting violence against institutions, some calling for a coup d'état. The continuous disregard of Brazilian laws meant that Musk, which in addition do not paid the fines, also removed his legal representatives from the country, which is not permitted by our legislation.
What people don't get is that mild "censorship" is desirable even under common Libertarian ideologies.
The general rule is that you have the freedom to do and say whatever you want as long as you don't harm others.
Unrestricted free speech simply does not exist and any free society will have mild censorship, otherwise a lot of terrorists, criminals and fraudsters could defend themselves under free speech.
Also brazilian here. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of illegal speech. One is allowed to go public and speak their minds, but if their speech is illegal (hate speech, conspiracy to overthrow the government, political campaigning during embargo periods), there will be consequences for those, and that does not constitute censorship.
Initially, consequences were not that bad (take down of some illegal posts), then they went to removal of recurring offender profiles.X ignored those Supreme Court Justice orders - their only legal course of action being to comply and file an appeal to the Supreme Court as a whole. That led to further escalation against their legal representation in Brazil and their executives (which is according to Brazilian law), which led to Musk shutting down the local representation rather than following the local law. Which put X in a non-compliance state and led to the order for its blocking.
If you understand the initial order to take down posts of defamation and illegal speech as censorship, you comply and appeal. Ignoring a court order is not a legal option.
> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of illegal speech.
In Brazil you can go to jail for a slur against a queer person. That is not the case in the U.S.
The question is not about Freedom of Speech, it is about changing the laws on what is protected and illegal speech. I do not like Musk as a person, but what he is doing is an act of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the active, and professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government.
I am wary of the tightening fence around what is protected speech. I am a historian, and the censors never end up being the good guys.
Civil disobedience means breaking a law in order to argue in court that the law is bad, thereby deliberately putting yourself at risk of serious consequences.
This is not civil disobedience, because Elon Musk is not in Brazil, nor a citizen of Brazil, and is not personally at any risk.
You can have freedom of speech, but there’s no country were it’s absolute. You’re always responsible for consequences of what you say.
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
> Stop being dishonest about the situation. You know full well [...]
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
A court ordering for social media accounts to be blocked is censorship, no question about that.
If there are "election rules" that regulate what can be posted online, that's censorship. Even if people are inciting violence or formenting revolution, banning them is censorship.
Most governments participate in censorship, and most people are OK with some level of censorship. But Brazil's constitution guarantees freedom of speech without censorship, so their courts have no business issuing orders to censor social media.
> A court ordering for social media accounts to be blocked is censorship, no question about that
This is a bad litmus test. Courts order fraudsters to stop doing fraud all the time. It's censorship. But it's acceptable censorship, even in America where we have a uniquely-potent First Amendment.
> Brazil's constitution guarantees freedom of speech without censorship
That can't work in reality though. So at best it can only be a theoretical ideal, merely a guideline for practical legislation. Same way French constitution has equal rights for all citizen baked into its constitution for more than a century.
You are down voted by people who don't understand what the word censorship means. The problem is that the censors don't call it "censorship" anymore, for vanity reasons. Leading us into this dumb modern discourse. The same thing with the word "propaganda", that is misinterpreted to always mean something bad.
Each day the popular vocabulary shrinks more and more, until we're back at cave man levels. Tower of Babylon.
> This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders.
This is unconstitutional according to their interpretation of the (very extensive and vague) article 5 of the 1998 constitution, maybe. At the same time, if you disagree with a judicial order, you probably should appeal the order, rather than refuse/ignore it. Ignoring judicial orders has consequences.
> Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”).
It says a lot of things (that can be interpreted in many ways). Note that it also says "é livre a manifestação do pensamento, *sendo vedado o anonimato*". Did Twitter/X refuse to give information about accounts, after having been asked by the Supreme Court? If yes, then it can also be said that they are breaking article 5 of the 1988 constitution.
In general, constitutional laws (in Brazil and elsewhere) tend to be rather vague. The devil is in the details. Just because it says somewhere that "é livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença", doesn't mean that you are free to express your art of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, for instance.
> If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries.
In general, a person (or other legal entity) are not free to pick and choose what laws or judicial orders they want to follow, depending on their own interpretation of the law. Or, I mean... they can... but there are usually consequences to ignoring judicial orders.
Yes and appeal to whom? Himself, who’s clearly shown himself to be a partisan? Why even need an executive when your judiciary can basically unilaterally function as executive be a legislator in one? Obviously they’re is not the US, but that’s not an excuse to a ridiculous system.
If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders).
If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts (or auto-removes tweets) for using terms Musk dislikes (like "cis" or "cisgender").
I really don't buy the "free speech" argument here, since Twitter has never been an "absolute free speech" space to begin with. Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
> If you cannot appeal (and you probably can't, since this was a judicial order by the Supreme Court), then you have to comply (or face the consequences of ignoring judicial orders).
It was a secret order from one justice of the Supreme Court, not an official order or decision from the whole of the Supreme Court. It came with an order to maintain secrecy to avoid public scrutiny, which tells you all you need to know about its legality and ethics. Anyways, X’s appeals were not heard by the same supreme court, and that’s probably in part because the other justices are also intimidated by the aggression and power grab by the authoritarians in the regime - namely de Moraes and Lula himself.
If a government commits atrocities at the highest level in secret, should no one refuse or speak up? Of course not - it’s by airing these out in public that it can even be challenged, if there is corruption or authoritarianism. You don’t have to just blindly comply and accept dictatorships.
> Note that Musk had no problem censoring and banning accounts when asked by the Turkish or Indian governments.
This feels like a distraction not an argument - it’s not relevant what happened in other countries. Also X did challenge censorship in India at least, in a lawsuit after Musk acquired Twitter. They lost the lawsuit in that case, but the main thing is that censorship was legal in other jurisdictions where X complied. It’s illegal in Brazilian law, which is why they aren’t caving to the demands of that one single rogue supreme court justice.
> This feels like a distraction not an argument - it’s not relevant what happened in other countries.
It's relevant, because it shows that Twitter/Musk has no problem engaging in state-mandated censorship, as long as it the mandate comes under the form of a judicial order.
The fact that Twitter/Musk also has no problem engaging in non-state-mandated censorship (e.g., banning of arbitrary words that displease Musk), further reinforces the notion that the refusal has nothing to do with "not wanting to cave to [censorship] demands".
> Also X did challenge censorship in India at least, in a lawsuit after Musk acquired Twitter. They lost the lawsuit in that case, but the main thing is that censorship was legal in other jurisdictions where X complied.
According to article 19 of the Constitution of India (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/), "all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression".
> It’s illegal in Brazilian law, which is why they aren’t caving to the demands of that one single rogue supreme court justice.
According to what? Constitutional law (the same way censorship is also illegal under Indian Constitutional law)?
If the supreme court justice is "rogue", there are specific mechanisms in the Brazilian political system to boot him out of the TSF.
> You don’t have to just blindly comply and accept dictatorships.
Unless the dictatorship changes the constitution (or some other laws) to make censorship legal, right? Otherwise, it's ok, according to your logic, since Musk/Twitter is ok with censorship, as long as (they consider) it is legal.
> If the argument is that it is illegal to "censor", due to the Brazilian constitution, then Twitter is already engaging in illegal behaviour whenever it bans accounts
In the US first amendment protections only apply to the government. Is that different in Brazil?
Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly.
Furthermore, there is already a precedent here: both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil until they decided to comply with judicial orders (after which, they were unbanned again). Why does Twitter think they are special in this regard?
If the judicial order is (correctly) justified by an inconstitutional law, then it's that specific law that has to be challenged, not the judicial order.
> Exactly. It is perfectly legal for a private entity (such as Twitter) to engage in censorship, as they regularly do so. So, the argument that "we can't do that, because that would be illegal" doesn't really fly.
These are in no way equivalent. e.g. the first amendment only protects you from the government not from private organizations (if anything them deciding to publish or not to publish your content is an expression of freedom of speech and is right that the Supreme Court has confirmed). Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different.
> both Telegram and Meta have been previously (temporarily) banned from Brazil
That's still unreasonable.
Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order...
Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people and actually might lead to some positive outcomes in some rare cases.
> These are in no way equivalent. e.g. the first amendment only protects you from the government not from private organizations (if anything them deciding to publish or not to publish your content is an expression of freedom of speech and is right that the Supreme Court has confirmed).
Sure, but we are not discussing the first amendment, or US law in general. As you must be aware, protection of freedom of expression rights are different in different jurisdictions.
> Obviously I'm not fully aware how exactly this works in Brazil but I doubt if it's fundamentally different.
I would not be so sure. For example, it is not legal to display a swastika in Germany (even though Germany is usually considered a democratic rule-of-law country), even though it might be legal to do so in the US.
> That's still unreasonable.
Just stating this (without any further argumentation) doesn't make it so. My only point is that, apparently, there is legal precedence for such kinds of things (i.e., banning a certain social network when it refuses to appoint a legal representative in Brazil).
> Also you're still dodging the VPN ban order...
I'm not dodging anything... that is a different issue, that we can further discuss, if you want to have a discussion in good faith. Trying to change subjects without addressing the point I made could be seen as moving goalposts, though.
> Anyway.. I understand that authoritarianism has a certain appeal to some people [...].
Ad hominem argumentation is not the best approach to argumentation, if you want to be taken seriously and have a discussion in good faith.
I'm not sure what do you mean by that. How is this specific decision, or some of the other examples/laws you've mentioned not authoritarian at least to some extent? It doesn't mean that they are not necessarily or unjustifiable in every single case.
> Trying to change subjects without addressing the point I made
I kept repeating this point in every comment I made. Yet you ignored it from the very beginning. Also it's not a different subject, it's intrinsically related to the decision made to ban Twitter since that's how the judge decided to enforce it.
> without addressing the point I made could be seen as moving goalposts
The point that different countries have different laws? Well that's a fact, not sure how can I address it. However I'm curious where do you draw the line? e.g. the USSR had laws, Russia has laws, Venezuela has laws so does China, Hungary and every other country. They all have vary different attitudes to freedom of speech and a bunch of other matters, do you believe that they are all equally valid, reasonable and legitimate?
I mean that "trying to argue based on (your perception of) the person you are talking to, rather than what is being discussed, is a bad argumentation strategy".
> How is this specific decision, or some of the other examples/laws you've mentioned not authoritarian at least to some extent?
Even if it is (which you surely haven't demonstrated), in what way does that imply that I (or anyone else) feel "appeal towards authoritarianism"? Stick to discussing the subject, instead of discussing the people you are talking to, if you want to be taken seriously.
> It doesn't mean that they are not necessarily or unjustifiable in every single case.
If they are legally, morally and ethically justifiable (at least sometimes), then it's not really "authoritarianism": it's just "rule-of-law".
> I kept repeating this point in every comment I made. Yet you ignored it from the very beginning.
No. The only time you mentioned it (in a response to me) was when I called you out. If you disagree, please post the supposed previous comment you made (in response to me) where you bring up the VPN ban issue.
> Also it's not a different subject, it's intrinsically related to the decision made to ban Twitter since that's how the judge decided to enforce it.
From what I understand, the only thing that was banned was the use of circumvention technologies for the purpose of accessing Twitter (which seems legitimate if his previous ruling is to be effectively enforced). From what I understand, the blanket ban of VPN technologies (which does not seem legitimate to me) has been reversed.
> The point that different countries have different laws? Well that's a fact, not sure how can I address it.
The way to address it is to accept that US laws (and US standards of free speech) do not apply to this case, since it is outside of US jurisdiction. Furthermore, to accept that, if a company wants to operate in a certain country, it kind of has to abide by its laws and regulations (regardless of whether they are legitimate or not).
> However I'm curious where do you draw the line? e.g. the USSR had laws, Russia has laws, Venezuela has laws so does China, Hungary and every other country. They all have vary different attitudes to freedom of speech and a bunch of other matters, do you believe that they are all equally valid, reasonable and legitimate?
Obviously not, but the fact remains: if you want to operate in USSR, Russia, Venezuela, China, Hungary, or wherever, you need to comply with local regulations and laws. Or, of course, you can choose not to, but then it is quite likely that local authorities will do whatever they can to prevent your company from operating in their country.
Musk/Twitter has no problem complying with Turkish and Indian court requests and laws, even when it involves censorship. Yet, it can't seem to do the same when it comes to Brazilian court requests and laws. Strange...
I’ve mentioned the HN guidelines to you before, as this type of aggression is not ideal for this space. I understand you are very invested in this story - many people are, myself included. But this type of comment is not appropriate for Hacker News.
> The court will judge the matter collectively in due time in accordance with Brazilian due process, but judges have the power to decide matters immediately when needed before waiting for the court.
I am not familiar with what you’re claiming here about the matter being judged collectively in due time with Brazilian due process - care to share a source?
I do think though that you aren’t quite responding to the point the GP comment made: First, X has nowhere to appeal to because the Supreme Court has refused to hear their appeals so far, which is something X has stated publicly. And of course, the person issuing these secret censorship orders is a member of the Brazilian Supreme Court, so there is also the conflict of interest. There may be no way to eliminate conflict of interest at this highest level court since other justices may feel intimidated by Alexandre de Moraes’s power, or they may simply be on his side as professional friends.
> Mr. Moraes has jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. He has also ordered social networks to remove thousands of posts and videos with little room for appeal.
Second, the GP comment made the point that the judiciary was functioning as the executive and legislative branches. They are correct about that, since no new legislation was passed to give Alexandre de Moraes this power. He effectively gave himself this power from the electoral court he was president of, by proposing to the court that he be granted these unilateral powers. That happened in 2022, and was flagged by journalists and legal experts as a threat to democracy at the time.
> I am not familiar with what you’re claiming here about the matter being judged collectively in due time with Brazilian due process - care to share a source?
These aren't "secret censorship orders". They are a matter of public record.
Also they are perfectly legal. Brazil has a modern "Internet Law" which in its Section III, Article 19 states:
"Art. 19. In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, the provider of internet applications can only be subject to civil liability for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after an specific court order, it does not take any steps to, within the framework of their service and within the time stated in the order, make unavailable the content that was identified as being unlawful, unless otherwise provided by law."
> You can if there is a venue for that. If the government is behaving in arbitrary and authoritarian way trusting it to do the right thing is a bit silly...
I assume that the judge in question used a specific criminal or civil law to justify his judicial order. If Twitter believes this law to be unconstitutional, the correct venue for their legal recourse is the Constitutional Court, not the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, until the Constitutional Court decides to hear their challenge and (possibly) revoke the law in question (possibly with retroactive effects), they still have to comply with judicial orders.
From what I understand, the Senate (if they believe the judge in question to be acting outside the law) has the necessary powers to boot the judge from the Supreme Court, if necessary. Twitter doesn't, sorry.
> Nobody is arguing about that, though.
People are arguing based on the supposed protection that the Brazilian constitution reserves for freedom of expression. This protection is not absolute, though (as pointed out by my example).
And constitutional law is not something that is directly applied: it mostly serves as guiding principles for the production of specific civil and criminal laws by the legislative power.
"This judicial order is inconstitutional" is simply a bad argument (from a legal point-of-view); a much more reasonable argument is "this judicial order is justified/based on an unconstitutional law" (but that is not the argument that is being made, as far as I can tell). If the judge is justifying his orders based on an inconstitutional law, then you should challenge the law itself, not the judicial order (if you can't really challenge the judicial order, which seems to be the case).
> Maybe appointing people who behave like schoolchildren to the supreme court is not the best idea then?
For someone who claims to be concerned about Brazilian law, Musk sure seems willing to ignore Brazilian laws, whenever it suits him.
Also, maybe it's not just the judge that is acting like a schoolchild, in this context. What do you think is going to happen if you talk back and threaten a judge with being arrested, even in a US court of law? Usually not fun things.
> Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries.
Said "freedom of expression" in Brazil is constrained by the following paragraphs, that for example explicitly:
IV - requires anything considered "free speech" to be explicitly non-anonymous.
V - anything considered "free speech" must pay compensation to harmed third parties.
X - "free speech" can't violate the personal privacy and honor of third parties.
XVII - "free speech" doesn't apply to you if you're trying to assemble a paramilitary force.
It is not "free speech" in the "I speak what I want" sense at all. Violation of those rules isn't considered "censorship" because you didn't have the rights (to be anonymous, to harm others, and to assemble juntas) to start with.
Harming others does not justify censorship. Brazilians get to answer and to be made whole via legal means. Article 5, term V. They don't get to preempt or prevent the speech.
You cited term X which says people's intimacy, private life, honor and image are inviolable. Looks like you didn't finish reading it though. Right after those words is written the following:
> the right to be indemnified for the material or moral damage secondary to their violation is guaranteed
It basically says you're entitled to a payday if someone damages your privacy or reputation.
Nowhere does it say that censorship is warranted. The constitution goes out of its way to explicitly mention that censorship is prohibited multiple times and in multiple places.
> The expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication activity is free, independently of censorship or license
> Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited
I think it's worth noting that "this legal order is unconstitutional therefore I won't abide by it" is still illegal to do in any constitutional democracy that I know of, even if you're ultimately right, including in the USA. You can abide by the order and then seek reparations, but you can't claim something is unconstitutional like that.
Obligatory IANAL and speaking from an American perspective.
You certainly can, but it usually takes the form of defying the order and appealing to a higher court for a stay pending trial and then hopefully and eventually a reversal of the order when hopefully it is indeed found to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
> making it impossible for X to challenge what they viewed as unconstitutional orders to censor speech
Unconstitutional in which country? And if you disagree with that in Brazil you can make your case to the Supreme Court.
Musk was playing chicken with a Brazilian Supreme Court judge who called his bluff. He obviously lost, because the latter has immediate legal power and X doesn't.
Please stop. The moment you mentioned started mixing the Executive with the Judiciary ("has support of sitting president") it became clear you are not providing pure facts, but an opinion.
The way I see this: the Supreme Court asked X to remove content and accounts that main purpose were to promote hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions; X didn't comply; fines were issued; fines were never paid by X; the justice started using all available legal tools to fulfill the previous mandates (content removal and/or pecuniary penalties).
> Please stop. The moment you mentioned started mixing the Executive with the Judiciary ("has support of sitting president") it became clear you are not providing pure facts, but an opinion.
If you are going to post here, you need to engage in good faith. A five second search could have brought you to numerous articles quoting Lula where he supports Alexandre de Moraes’s actions and criticizes Musk. So yes, the executive and the judiciary are mixed because one is lending support publicly to the other. Those are the FACTS.
> The way I see this: the Supreme Court asked X to remove content and accounts that main purpose were to promote hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions
It doesn’t matter if accounts promote “hate and aggression towards the electoral system and institutions” (which just sounds like hyperbole for criticizing political processes) - that isn’t sufficient grounds for state enforced censorship in any free and democratic society. If you want to admit that Brazil has turned authoritarian, that’s one thing. But these convoluted narratives are wildly inaccurate and unconvincing.
You do not understand Brazilian rule of law at all. WE have a specific bill that regulate specifically the internet and social media. We have a penal code that assure that freedom of speech it's not absolute. You do not have the right to be racis (for instance if you wear a nazi flag or post nazi content you go to jail). In 2021 the supreme court established a dept exactly to study and create legal mechanisms to understand and protect disinformation (specially on electoral period): https://portal.stf.jus.br/desinformacao/ And also a vast jurisprudence on the subject on many instances of Brazilian Legal System: https://www.tjdft.jus.br/consultas/jurisprudencia/jurisprude...
A bill cannot override constitutionally granted civil liberties. The penal code is secondary to the constitution. Regardless, no law was passed to give de Moraes the powers he now claims. He even literally said that his power comes from the electoral court that he was president of, not from a constitutional amendment or legislation. Do you think the judiciary should be able to grant itself powers arbitrarily? Does it make logical sense for De Moraes to serve on one court that grants himself powers in a different court?
the 1st Art of our Constitution is exactly this:
"Art. 1º A República Federativa do Brasil, formada pela união indissolúvel dos Estados e Municípios e do Distrito Federal, constitui-se em Estado Democrático de Direito e tem como fundamentos:
I - a soberania;
II - a cidadania;
******III - a dignidade da pessoa humana;**** (The dignity of human being being assured)
Then it comes the Art 5:
Art. 5º Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, ''''''à liberdade'''''' (freedom, not only speech), à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes:
[...]
IV - é livre a manifestação do pensamento, sendo vedado o anonimato.
V - é assegurado o direito de resposta, proporcional ao agravo, além da indenização por dano material, moral ou à imagem; [...]
In none of art 5 parts it says the freedom of thought and of expression is Absolute, on contrary, i let here for you guys translate yourselves the paragraph V... It's not censorship when you comit a crime, you lose your freedom when you comit a crime (depend on the aggravation of course, its penalty dosimetry)
For others reading the parent comment to this one - they left out the most relevant part of the Brazilian constitution for this situation, presumably on purpose to make the secret censorship orders look legal. Within Article 5, is Title 9 which reads:
> “IX. expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity is free, independent of any censorship or license”
And note that the introductory text that precedes this reads:
> “Everyone is equal before the law, with no distinction whatsoever, guaranteeing to Brazilians and foreigners residing in the Country the inviolability of the rights to life, liberty, equality, security and property, on the following terms:”
In other words, “communication activity” (which posting on Twitter obviously constitutes) is protected without censorship.
In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom.
Which means Freedom (including of Speech) in its very conception is more bounded that the US notion of Free Speech (which, even though also limited, is less restrictive).
However, Free Speech based on the First Amendment only applies to the individual's relations with the State. A private employer in the US can fire an employee for saying something that doesn't reflect the values of the company, even if that speech was lawful. In France (and I assume most Freedom of Speech countries), the constitutional protection applies even with private entities and an employee cannot be fired for a lawful speech. .
>In France specifically, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (which is an integral part of the Constitution), defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others, and that the Law determines the limits of a freedom.
But the whole point of freedom of speech is for situations where it does "harm others". If nobody has a problem with your speech, then you don't need laws to protect it. The protection is only useful if speech comes into conflict with someone.
Freedom of speech doesn't stop where somebody else's rights begin, it starts there. There is no need for freedom of speech before that.
And the entire point of constitutional rights is that they should make the society better. There is no inherent value in abstract principles.
Broadly speaking, freedom of speech can mean two roughly orthogonal things:
1. Lack of government censorship.
2. Freedom of speech as an outcome: a society where people can speak their minds without excessive consequences.
Sense 2 is inherently vague and can't be regulated, as people won't agree on when the consequences are excessive. But it's usually what people want when they care about the freedom of speech.
The two senses are sometimes opposed. If you say something other people find unpleasant and a million people decide to ruin your life, it's clearly against freedom of speech in sense 2. But if you have laws against such mob justice, they can easily violate freedom of speech in sense 1.
Freedom of speech in sense 2 is more about culture than government regulations. If you have a highly polarized society, you can't have freedom of speech in that sense.
The "harm" is in relation to other people's constitutional freedoms and rights. Freedom of speech isn't inherently superior to, say, freedom of assembly, freedom of belief, the right to safety in one's person and one's properties, the right to vote, and so on...
It's a question of value: either you think Freedom of Speech is the highest form of freedom and right that one can hold, and all the other freedoms must come second, or that all freedom and rights are equal, and the role of the Constitution and the law is to find a balance between those.
> defines freedom as doing anything which does not harm others
Who decides if someone is harmed? Did I really harm someone if I called them a homophobic slur? Can I say that someone harmed me if the mispronounce my name?
> The US constitution categorically upholds the value of Free Speech whereas the European Court of Human Rights Article 10 explicitly lists the reasons that free expression can be constrained.
There is no difference. From all my searching, these terms are used interchangeably. As far as Brazil is concerned, freedom of expression is freedom of speech. Specifically Article 5 describes four activities of expression that are “free and independent of any censorship”: intellectual activity, artistic activity, scientific activity, and communication activity.
Isn't it about the people who invaded government buildings on January 8 2923 because they claimed Jair Bolsonaro won the election much like the January 6 attack in the USA after Trump lost?
The same people who wanted to overthrow the government and wanted a coup d'état by the military?
I doubt that the US government would differently in such cases.
And Twitter censored accounts on behalf of Turkey and India for political reasons but in Brasil they act differently, maybe Musk is in favor of Bolsonaro.
And that Linda makes the decisions is questionable at best
As far as I'm aware, the American government has never ordered a social media platform to ban certain accounts. Even mild government suggestions about social media content are quite controversial in the US.
Yes, in the U.S. the obedient capitalists act as proxy censors for the government, in exchange for campaign donations, preferential tax treatment, and weak regulatory enforcement.
I'm not sure what you intend for me to infer from this context-free link. It doesn't seem to include any examples of the government ordering Twitter to ban certain accounts, although it does have a few of the suggestions regarding content I mentioned.
They never ordered anyone to censor anything. They shared recommendations that as far as we know were based on good faith determinations. Twitter was never obligated to do anything.
That's a stretch. They could have decided twitter was non compliant and started treating them a little less gently but would they order content be removed or issue fines or some other direct punishment? Probably not.
If you look at the revelations from Zuckerberg‘s letter this week, you will see that they were not good faith recommendations. They were highly aggressive demands made in forceful ways. Remember, the administration that issued these demands is also in control of the agencies that regulate the same company. For example, the FTC, who could determine that the company is acting anti-competitively or whatever else. They are in a position of power above this company, and therefore, even if they had made the suggestion in a friendly way, it would still be from a position of power that could compel them.
> The root of the issue is that Alexandre de Moraes, a single justice on the Supreme Court, has been issuing secret orders to censor content, ban accounts, and jail people over political speech. This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders.
Oh... so now Twatter/Musk is "god-like" and above the law? Judge Dredd?
Why Elon doesn't bring "peace and liberty" to China? Or other nice countries?
If the order is illegal you show that in court. U.S. district courts constantly issue illegal orders. There is a massive difference between appealing for an emergency stay and just blowing off the court. (Musk is a brilliant entrepreneur. He has given zero shits about the rule of law across his career, domestically or abroad.)
At the end of the day, both sides in this case are posturing. The judge gets to act like he's standing up to us American imperialists. Musk gets affirmation from his anti-work censorship crowd. The fact that X f/k/a Twitter has zero employees in Brazil should tell you how much that market really matters to him.
> Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino
This is nonsense. I have a lot of respect for senior people on the X team as well as many of their shareholders. Yaccarino is an obvious puppet.
I mean, let’s be real. X isn’t profitable so does retaining a bunch of users from a country with relatively low disposable income really matter?
I fully support Brazil banning X because a country can do whatever they want, but let’s not pretend X owes Brazil anything.
Brazil is irrelevant to X and countries that act like dictators deserve to be ignored by foreign companies. It’s hilarious to see Brazil play their cards and show they have no power over their citizens by threatening to fine them for using a VPN to access X.
This isn’t bias against LATAM, I also want to see Australia lose business due to their crazy spy laws.
> X isn’t profitable so does retaining a bunch of users from a country with relatively low disposable income really matter?
Oh, I totally agree with you. But they're not worth negative money. This was a cheap stunt for both sides to pull off. But it's still a stunt. X's TAM has been cut. Brazil's reputation harmed. But both men have personal interests that make those costs worth it, and there isn't anyone in their respective domains who can check them.
If the judge's orders clearly contradict the constitution, it's pretty logical to suggest that these would lead him to a jail.
There are various ways to resolve a conflict; to comply to your opponent's demands just because he happens to hold a high enough office is but one of these ways. Complying to unlawful orders so as to preserve profits is often seen as corruption. Sometimes the best way to resolve a conflict correctly is to take a stand.
A military coup d'état is unconstitutional in nearly every country, to prevent that and protect the intended way of change of government isn't a magical right but simply a duty of the government.
And Musk didn't fight as hard in India or Turkey for accounts of people that did far less.
The actual act of a coup is unconstitutional in probably every country. But talking about a coup is not unconstitutional in many countries. For example in the US, seditious speech is protected.
Anyways, Alexandre de Moraes - the Supreme Court justice in this situation - is acting unconstitutionally in multiple ways. Issuing orders to censor, ban, or arrest in secret is depriving the victims of due process and the public of accountability. He also said himself that he is not getting his powers from law but from what the other court he sits on gave him as a new power, which is just a made up legal invention on his part. How can a court make up legal powers, when that is meant to come from the constitution and legislation?
> And Musk didn't fight as hard in India or Turkey for accounts of people that did far less.
You are one among many attempting the whataboutism of bringing up Turkey and India, even though it has no bearing on what is happening in Brazil. I don’t agree with censorship in any of these cases. However, Twitter/X has publicly stated that their policy is to comply with local laws in each country. The difference is in the legality of orders per that country’s own laws. In Brazil, there is a right to freedom of expression without censorship, per article 5 of the constitution. Also another difference is that the censorship orders here were done in secret - like with gag orders that make it invisible to the public - and this is both highly unethical but also makes this judge unaccountable and difficult to challenge.
>But talking about a coup is not unconstitutional in many countries. For example in the US, seditious speech is protected.
Unless you were already part in an attempt than it's more likely you aren't just express your opinion but coordinate your next attempt over social media.
Free speech has limit. Just look at Charles Manson, he didn't kill anybody but he talked others into.
You wouldn't call Russian orders through Telegram free speech, would you?
The same entity behaves differently on the same issue but from different requester.
By your logic every complain about racism is whataboutism.
"Why got the black man jailed for drug possession but white man got probation?
The root of the issue is that Alexandre de Moraes, a single justice on the Supreme Court, has been issuing secret orders to censor content, ban accounts, and jail people over political speech. This is unconstitutional in Brazil per article 5 of the 1988 constitution, so X refused the orders. Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries.
Also the “Musk refused” part isn’t accurate. Ultimately these decisions are made by Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X.